# Pastor: I pray that God strikes 'wicked' Conor McGregor down with a lightning bolt!



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

> Pastor Donnie Romero from the Stedfast Baptist Church in Texas has spoken passionately about Conor McGregor comparing himself to God. He has even gone as far a proclaiming that the UFC Featherweight Champion is “a wicked person”. Romero told his congregation *“I’m going to pray that God strikes him down with a lightening bolt”.* He also told his followers “shame on you” if you were a fan of the Dubliner.
> 
> http://www.shockmansion.com/2016/02/01/video-i-pray-that-god-strikes-this-guy-dead-american-baptist-church-minister-asks-god-to-kill-conor-mcgregor-with-a-lightning-bolt-after-conor-said-hed-knock-jesus-out/







I had a premonition where I saw hell coming down to this thread followed by an apocalyptical padlock. :laugh:


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

people and their silly fairy tales... My imaginary friend is going to spank you!

I'm sure McGregor is quaking in his boots!


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Well, wishing death on someone just because you have an issue with what he said.

And people say Islam is nuts.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Lol, cue the retarded Catholic hate train. You guys are equally as bad as that which you despise. Couldn't come up with an original idea if your lives depended on it.

I'm not even religious but holy crap the rhetoric is overdone. Like a merry go round repeating the same thing going in circles, except you people get an ego boost repeating the stupid rhetoric.


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

rabakill said:


> Lol, cue the retarded Catholic hate train. You guys are equally as bad as that which you despise. Couldn't come up with an original idea if your lives depended on it.
> 
> I'm not even religious but holy crap the rhetoric is overdone. Like a merry go round repeating the same thing going in circles, except you people get an ego boost repeating the stupid rhetoric.


Who said anything about catholic specifically? I don't differentiate between fairy tales. They are all equally silly to me and it's silly to me that adults still believe in that. 
But hey, go ahead with your ignorant comments, since that clearly makes you feel better about yourself.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

There is no person on this planet god needs to strike before Conor McGregor.... he is clearly the worse of them all. 

This is as bad as Ronda's mother wanting a guy in jail to further Ronda's fighting career.

I'm cool with your religion... But surely anyone can see Pastor Donnie NoForGayJesus is a bad example of it...


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Joabbuac said:


> This is as bad as Ronda's mother wanting a guy in jail to further Ronda's fighting career.


Actually, she wanted to run her car over him, but she realized there were laws against it.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Y'all go on and laugh but only satan could have helped that inbred hillbilly to annihilate the #1 fighter in the world with one punch.
I wouldn't be standing next to him on a cloudy day. 




His will be done.raise01:


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Joabbuac said:


> There is no person on this planet god needs to strike before Conor McGregor.... he is clearly the worse of them all.


Actually, blasphemy is indeed one of the if not THE worst sins you can commit. Any worldy sin can be forgiven, blasphemy can not (at least according to the Abrahamic religions)

Mark 3:29: _Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit *never has forgiveness*, but is guilty of an eternal sin"_

Quran 33:57–61_Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, *they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)*._

Leviticus 24:16: _And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord *shall surely be put to death*. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be *put to death*._


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Seems a tad harsh...


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Fast forward two days and the headline is "Pastor jailed for child molesting"


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Frankly, I would be disappointed if a Pastor didn't get his panties in a twist regards Conors ramblings.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

:dunno:










:dunno:


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Voiceless said:


> Actually, blasphemy is indeed one of the if not THE worst sins you can commit. Any worldy sin can be forgiven, blasphemy can not (at least according to the Abrahamic religions)
> 
> Mark 3:29: _Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit *never has forgiveness*, but is guilty of an eternal sin"_
> 
> ...


How else is one to scare mindless sheep into believing in the almighty jew zombie in the sky? If you are "against" him, you burn. That whole "believe or burn" thing worked really well on primitive minds back when the Jesus myth was first stolen from Mithraism.

Personally, I think the zombie needs to pull the dildo out of his ass (you know he loves it) and come down to earth, maybe play some video games or something. Smoke some weed maybe, relax, try not be such an evil tyrant, maybe try to get along with some people instead of wanting to murder and torture anyone who doesn't agree with him, stop being such a useless and worthless ****, etc. 

As for the pastor... well, what can you say? Hopefully he gets tied down to a chair, has his nuts sawed off and someone makes him choke to death on them. Or, wait, is wishing that kind of torture on someone only allowed in his religion and religions based on the same stolen mythology? My bad. Hope he has a swell day!


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Killing everyone who does not agree with you sounds uhhh kinda Nazi like... From what i hear, they are considered bad people.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Joabbuac said:


> Killing everyone who does not agree with you sounds uhhh kinda Nazi like... From what i hear, they are considered bad people.


Religious lunatics have been behaving like Nazis long before Nazis did.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I don't know why y'all can't see it. It's so ****ing clear. Ido Portal is some poor soul whose body has been possessed by the Dark one. He's here because goober sold his soul for ufc gold.




it's the only thing that makes sense.



y'all need to get right with God while there's still time.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Oh, religion is brought up, I guess I should immediately proceed to insult everyone who believes in religion cause of reasons.

The funniest thing to me is people are like "Religious people try and force their beliefs on you. Religious people are idiots" and don't notice the irony.

Atheism is essentially a religion these days with the militant stance people take.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Oh, religion is brought up, I guess I should immediately proceed to insult everyone who believes in religion cause of reasons.
> 
> The funniest thing to me is people are like "Religious people try and force their beliefs on you. Religious people are idiots" and don't notice the irony.
> 
> Atheism is essentially a religion these days with the militant stance people take.


1. Nobody here is insulting people who are religious, they are insulting the religion and the characters in that religion.

2. Nobody here is saying religious people are forcing religion on anybody

3. You don't have to be an atheist to see how ridiculous religion and its practices are. There are many, many people who believe in some form of God/deity who hate religion and find it to be horrible and evil, and or detrimental to society.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

M.C said:


> 1. Nobody here is insulting people who are religious, they are insulting the religion and the characters in that religion.
> 
> 2. Nobody here is saying religious people are forcing religion on anybody
> 
> 3. You don't have to be an atheist to see how ridiculous religion and its practices are. There are many, many people who believe in some form of God/deity who hate religion and find it to be horrible and evil, and or detrimental to society.


1. I'm not insulting Russians, I just think Russia is an absolutely disgusting and horrendous place. No wait...that's insulting Russians. Calling a religion stupid is to call those that believe in it stupid.

2. Lots of people say that. It's heavily regarded as the worst trait of the religious.

3. That's insulting religious people. Good for those people. Many people also believe in a specifically outlined God/deity. It's all a game of blind belief. Those that find religion evil are blindly believing just like those who get their system from a man made book.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> 1. I'm not insulting Russians, I just think Russia is an absolutely disgusting and horrendous place. No wait...that's insulting Russians. Calling a religion stupid is to call those that believe in it stupid.
> 
> 2. Lots of people say that. It's heavily regarded as the worst trait of the religious.
> 
> 3. That's insulting religious people. Good for those people. Many people also believe in a specifically outlined God/deity. It's all a game of blind belief. Those that find religion evil are blindly believing just like those who get their system from a man made book.


1. You can absolutely insult Russia without insulting its people. I insult America all the time, like almost on a daily basis, but have many friends and like a lot of the people here. Hell, half of my family are religious and I get along with them very well and love them. Insulting religion and its characters isn't insulting the people who believe in them. If you're into basketball and I say basketball sucks, it doesn't mean I think YOU suck, I means I think it's a shitty sport.

2. Lots of people do say religious people throw religion at others, and they do. Not in this thread, though, so why did you bring it up?

3. Again, what you said has noting to do with being an atheist. There are many people who believe in gods and deities that hate religion. Your argument was that "atheism is a religion" because of their stance on religion, but hating religion has nothing to do with being an atheist, many god/deity (as in, non-atheists) believers feel the same way. In fact there are many people who believe in the Christian god who have denounced their religion but still believe in god. So, what you said doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> 1. I'm not insulting Russians, I just think Russia is an absolutely disgusting and horrendous place. No wait...that's insulting Russians. Calling a religion stupid is to call those that believe in it stupid.
> 
> 2. Lots of people say that. It's heavily regarded as the worst trait of the religious.
> 
> 3. That's insulting religious people. Good for those people. Many people also believe in a specifically outlined God/deity. It's all a game of blind belief. Those that find religion evil are blindly believing just like those who get their system from a man made book.


1. You choose to be religious, but you don't choose to be Russian, so no, it's not insulting Russians, rather insulting the people who made you think of the country that way. Objectively thinking though, in general isn't religion stupid? No offence to religious people, I can understand why you would want to believe in a god etc, but when you look at it from a completely neutral standpoint, don't say religion isn't stupid. 

3. If you think 2+2 is 5 and I think 2+2 is 4, are we playing a game of blind belief?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> 1. Nobody here is insulting people who are religious, they are insulting the religion and the characters in that religion.


LOL, what? Come on, now. There are contradictions and then there's this.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> LOL, what? Come on, now. There are contradictions and then there's this.


If you're a Game of Thrones fan, and I say the show sucks balls and is ruining TV, that doesn't mean I think YOU suck balls and are ruining TV. If you're into Football, and I say the sport is awful, that doesn't mean I think YOU are awful. If you like Star Wars, but I say the story is a joke, its characters suck, and that the meaning behind the story is pathetic, that doesn't apply to YOU as a person nor am I talking about you. If someone comes up to you sand says "I think MMA is a dumb sport", does that personally insult YOU, do you take it as a personal insult on your person that someone doesn't like MMA?

You can absolutely insult/talk shit about religion without insulting the people who believe in it, just as you can anything else. Religion isn't some special little thing that has its own rules when it comes to talking about it. It is treated as anything else, and if someone is insulted when someone makes fun of its characters and silly stories, then they need to grow a pair of balls and realize the world doesn't revolve around them, and not everything is directed at them, and stop trying to be insulted/offended by everything, 'cause not everything is trying to insult them.

For example, when someone says "atheism is a religion!!" or whatever, I honestly couldn't care less nor do I feel insulted by it. That's your opinion, however unfounded it is, and I'm all good with you having it. I like debating that point sometimes, it can be interesting, but there's zero personal feeling of insult.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> If you're a Game of Thrones fan, and I say the show sucks balls and is ruining TV, that doesn't mean I think YOU suck balls and are ruining TV. If you're into Football, and I say the sport is awful, that doesn't mean I think YOU are awful. If you like Star Wars, but I say the story is a joke, its characters suck, and that the meaning behind the story is pathetic, that doesn't apply to YOU as a person nor am I talking about you. If someone comes up to you sand says "I think MMA is a dumb sport", does that personally insult YOU, do you take it as a personal insult on your person that someone doesn't like MMA?
> 
> *You can absolutely insult/talk shit about religion without insulting the people who believe in it*, just as you can anything else. Religion isn't some special little thing that has its own rules when it comes to talking about it. It is treated as anything else, and if someone is insulted when someone makes fun of its characters and silly stories, then they need to grow a pair of balls and realize the world doesn't revolve around them, and not everything is directed at them, and stop trying to be insulted/offended by everything, 'cause not everything is trying to insult them.
> 
> For example, when someone says "atheism is a religion!!" or whatever, I honestly couldn't care less at all nor do I feel insulted by it. That's your opinion, however unfounded it is, and I'm all good with you having it.


I swear I tried, but none of this make sense.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I swear I tried, but none of this make sense.


I gave a fairly detailed explanation, if you can't understand it then I guess that's that. :dunno:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> I gave a fairly detailed explanation, if you can't understand it then I guess that's that. :dunno:


It is fairly detailed, only doesn't make sense.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> It is fairly detailed, only doesn't make sense.


Care to explain what doesn't make sense about it? Please, enlighten me regarding the difference between telling someone their favorite sport is garbage, and telling someone I find their religion to be nonsense. Both examples, I have nothing against the person for their love of that particular sport or that particular religion. If they get upset over it, that's on them, they should grow up and realize that not everything is out there to personally insult them.

Again, I'm an atheist, and if someone comes up and tells me that "Atheism is just a religion" or whatever else they feel like saying against or to counter Atheism, or ANYTHING they have to say about atheism, I have zero feeling of being insulted. If a religious person gets personally insulted when someone says religion is nonsense, they need to wake up and stop trying to be insulted by everything, as not everything is gunning for them.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

M.C said:


> If you like Star Wars, but I say the story is a joke, its characters suck, and that the meaning behind the story is pathetic,


If you actually really say that, you are a bad person and should absolutely get no christmas presents!


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> the almighty jew zombie in the sky


Sounds like a Philip K Dick novel


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Spite said:


> Well, wishing death on someone just because you have an issue with what he said.
> 
> And people say Islam is nuts.


you and people are both right. :thumb02: Religion attracts the mentally ill.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> Care to explain what doesn't make sense about it? Please, enlighten me regarding the difference between telling someone their favorite sport is garbage, and telling someone I find their religion to be nonsense. Both examples, I have nothing against the person for their love of that particular sport or that particular religion. If they get upset over it, that's on them, they should grow up and realize that not everything is out there to personally insult them.
> 
> Again, I'm an atheist, and if someone comes up and tells me that "Atheism is just a religion" or whatever else they feel like saying against or to counter Atheism, or ANYTHING they have to say about atheism, I have zero feeling of being insulted. If a religious person gets personally insulted when someone religion nonsense, they need to wake up and stop trying to be insulted by everything, as not everything is gunning for them.


This "if people get insulted, that's on them" means only you don't care if people are insulted or not. Also, to compare someone's favorite sport with someone's religion only shows even more evidence you don't care about what other people believe. Good. We get that, but saying to someone the religion they believe is garbage and expecting they don't feel insulted otherwise they have to grow balls is absolute nonsense.

I agree atheism is not a religion per se, but it is piling up among the great variaty of beliefs out there, so it is perfectly comparable to many religions in this sense.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> This "if people get insulted, that's on them" means only you don't care if people are insulted or not. Also, to compare someone's favorite sport with someone's religion only shows even more evidence you don't care about other people believe. Good. We get that, but saying to someone the religion they believe is garbage and expecting they don't feel insulted otherwise they have to grow balls is absolute nonsense.
> 
> I agree atheism is not a religion per se, but it is piling up among the great variaty of beliefs out there, so it is perfectly comparable to many religions in this sense.


It's on them because they are being silly for being insulted when someone is anti-their religion/belief system. Again, if someone comes up and talks shit about Atheism, you won't find me insulted. You know why? 'Cause they aren't insulting me, that's why. I don't try to make up reasons to feel insulted, I'm not a child.

They do need to grow a pair, not because they are being insulted and they need to take it, but because they need to grow up and realize that not everything is insulting them, and to stop trying to find reasons to be insulted. If I tell you that you religion is garbage, that the stories are fairy tales, I'm telling you this - the religion is garbage and the stories are fairy tales. I have zero input on your character, what you are or who you are as a person, whether you are good or bad, etc. I don't even care if you believe in it, I'm all for people believing in whatever they wish. 

If someone gets upset by someone doing that, then the problem lies on their end. If I don't intend to insult someone, and the insult isn't thrown at them or in their direction, and I don't even think about them when saying what I have to say (as it has nothing to do with them), yet they still get insulted anyways, then they absolutely need to grow up and stop being a baby.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I agree atheism is not a religion per se, but it is piling up among the great variaty of beliefs out there, so it is perfectly comparable to many religions in this sense.


It's not. Only because there are many people that do not believe in god(s) and say so doesn't make Atheism a religion or something equal. The main characteristics of religion are missing. It doesn't claim to give answers, there is no transcendent spirituality, it's not meant to unite under the same system of values. 

The absence of believe is not a believe.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Voiceless said:


> It's not. Only because there are many people that do not believe in god(s) and say so doesn't make Atheism a religion or something equal. The main characteristics of religion are missing. It doesn't claim to give answers, there is no transcendent spirituality, it's not meant to unite under the same system of values.
> 
> The absence of believe is not a believe.


Especially when its the absence of belief in the supernatural.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

Voiceless said:


> It's not. Only because there are many people that do not believe in god(s) and say so doesn't make Atheism a religion or something equal. The main characteristics of religion are missing. It doesn't claim to give answers, there is no transcendent spirituality, it's not meant to unite under the same system of values.
> 
> The absence of believe is not a believe.


Atheism and scientism is every bit as dogmatic as religion. (ps, not sticking up for a religion, it's also just another form of mind control)

The 10 most common dogmatic beliefs usually include:


1)Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2)All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains - free will doesn't exist.

3)The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).

4)The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.

5)Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6)All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7)Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8)Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9)Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10)Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Atheism basically = materialism and an obsession with the physical domain.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> They do need to grow a pair, .


Nope the days of this in the world are gone. We are now in the age of safe rooms, people being outraged and over sensitive about anything they can possibly find to get upset about. The media and the justice warriors are telling people its ok to be outraged at everything and anything. Its a sad state of affairs, but its getting worse by the year


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

When people say "atheism is basically a religion" because atheists are pushing there beliefs on to people and generally being insane... why does that make them a religion? Because they are nuts? Thats what makes it comparable to a religion? 

Atheists are insane, so atheism = religion? 

Stop saying that... 

But really... anyone who is either strongly atheists or strongly religious are just people who don't know anything, because none of us know anything, telling people what to believe... and that is insane. 

I feel like... if you are a smart, strong individual, you will be in the middle... a slight lean one way or the other is fine, but in this case, the wisest man admits he knows nothing. 

But some people do need hope.... they need something to have faith in, i say... let them believe what they like on the other side, People who think their religion gives them the right to tell you what to do... stab them in the chest with a pitchfork.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Spite said:


> Well, wishing death on someone just because you have an issue with what he said.
> 
> And people say Islam is nuts.


All the major religions are nuts, that's why they're so successful. Once you've accepted the irrational basis it can be interpreted to justify practically anything, no matter how strange or horrible.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Atheism and scientism is every bit as dogmatic as religion. (ps, not sticking up for a religion, it's also just another form of mind control)
> 
> The 10 most common dogmatic beliefs usually include:
> 
> ...


Except Atheism has nothing to do with anything you just said. Atheism doesn't = science, and science doesn't = atheism. There are plenty of people who don't believe in a god purely out of common sense (the same reason they don't believe in unicorns and pixies). Many atheists don't go to science at all for answers. Many atheists are skeptical of scientific reasoning. 

I know atheists that believe that spirituality is a legitimate thing and we are all connected somehow, for example. They don't believe in a "god", or any being of supernatural force, but they believe in spirituality and beauty and all that stuff based within reality.

Nothing you said has anything to do with being an atheist. Being an atheist is LITERALLY just this - a lack in belief of a god. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond "I don't believe there's a magic man in the sky", is up to the individual and not part of being an atheist.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

HexRei said:


> All the major religions are nuts, that's why they're so successful. *Once you've accepted the irrational basis it can be interpreted to justify practically anything, no matter how strange or horrible.*


Kinda like eating tortured, dead animals. Oh, the justifications.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> It's on them because they are being silly for being insulted when someone is anti-their religion/belief system. Again, if someone comes up and talks shit about Atheism, you won't find me insulted. You know why? 'Cause they aren't insulting me, that's why. I don't try to make up reasons to feel insulted, I'm not a child.
> 
> They do need to grow a pair, not because they are being insulted and they need to take it, but because they need to grow up and realize that not everything is insulting them, and to stop trying to find reasons to be insulted. If I tell you that you religion is garbage, that the stories are fairy tales, I'm telling you this - the religion is garbage and the stories are fairy tales. I have zero input on your character, what you are or who you are as a person, whether you are good or bad, etc. I don't even care if you believe in it, I'm all for people believing in whatever they wish.
> 
> If someone gets upset by someone doing that, then the problem lies on their end. If I don't intend to insult someone, and the insult isn't thrown at them or in their direction, and I don't even think about them when saying what I have to say (as it has nothing to do with them), yet they still get insulted anyways, then they absolutely need to grow up and stop being a baby.


If people overreact about listening diferent ideas over their religion, I agree that's on them and that shows they don't have the faith they wish they had, but that is not we are talking about, we are talking about coming to someone's face and tell that person his/her religion and god are garbage. If anything, we should have a little courtesy and avoid useless confrontation. It's like telling to the face of the mother of the girl you are wishing to marry the soup she prepared smells like pig shit on the first time you've been invited over. Then you tell the old lady she needs to grow a pair...



Voiceless said:


> It's not. Only because there are many people that do not believe in god(s) and say so doesn't make Atheism a religion or something equal. The main characteristics of religion are missing. It doesn't claim to give answers, there is no transcendent spirituality, it's not meant to unite under the same system of values.
> 
> The absence of believe is not a believe.


The absence of believe is not a believe? If you believe there's nothing out there, isn't that a belief? Why then we are so used to see some talk shows about religion bringing in representants of Catholicism, Islamism, Bhudism,....., AND atheists?

There are many levels of religiosity as there are many levels of atheism. Some people will believe in the spirituality on their own way, without gathering in a temple or following certain rules, on the other side, the are atheists who are so deeply involved with *their own beliefs*, they feel the urge to talk about it even when not asked anything and even gathering in institutions they've created just to, guess what, spread their beliefs to the world. 

http://www.atheismuk.com

https://atheists.org

https://www.atheistalliance.org


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Joabbuac said:


> But really... anyone who is either strongly atheists or strongly religious are just people who don't know anything, because none of us know anything, telling people what to believe... and that is insane.
> 
> I feel like... if you are a smart, strong individual, you will be in the middle... a slight lean one way or the other is fine, but in this case, the wisest man admits he knows nothing.


I'd say a wise man doesn't believe in things for which there is literally no evidence at all. It's weird that people will totally agree that unicorns probably aren't real, and they don't worry too much about keeping an open mind on the topic, or who might be offended if they disagree with unicorn-based legislation, but when it comes to religion, we all have to tip toe around, even when religious people are busily altering textbooks and laws to reflect their faith-based views?



ReptilianSlayer said:


> Kinda like eating tortured, dead animals. Oh, the justifications.


Go back under your bridge please.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

M.C said:


> Except Atheism has nothing to do with anything you just said. Atheism doesn't = science, and science doesn't = atheism. There are plenty of people who don't believe in a god purely out of common sense (the same reason they don't believe in unicorns and pixies). Many atheists don't go to science at all for answers. Many atheists are skeptical of scientific reasoning.
> 
> I know atheists that believe that spirituality is a legitimate thing and we are all connected somehow, for example. They don't believe in a "god", or any being of supernatural force, but they believe in spirituality and beauty and all that stuff based within reality.
> 
> Nothing you said has anything to do with being an atheist. Being an atheist is LITERALLY just this - a lack in belief of a god. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond "I don't believe there's a magic man in the sky", is up to the individual and not part of being an atheist.


I should have said most rather than labeling all atheists - you're right. There are some who are skeptical of the scientific dogmas I listed, but more often than not, there is a strong correlation between the two.

"Carnism is a concept in discussions of humanity's relation to animals, defined as a prevailing ideology that conditions people to support the use of animal products, especially meat."

That's your religion, bro. Might = right.

Let's also not forget that some of the intellectual and "scientific" arguments for slavery was that black people were only 3/5's of a human.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

HexRei said:


> I'd say a wise man doesn't believe in things for which there is literally no evidence at all. It's weird that people will totally agree that unicorns probably aren't real, and they don't worry too much about keeping an open mind on the topic, or who might be offended if they disagree with unicorn-based legislation, but when it comes to religion, we all have to tip toe around, even when religious people are busily altering textbooks and laws to reflect their faith-based views?


This is basically what i mean... but leave open the possibility right? New things are discovered all the time. Obviously this applies to unicorns also. 

Funny thing is... nonbelievers will never be proven right on this. Maybe, if there is anything to religion, people who believe... will.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

I'm semi trolling you guys btw.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> If people overreact about listening diferent ideas over their religion, I agree that's on them and that shows they don't have the faith they wish they had, but that is not we are talking about, we are talking about coming to someone's face and tell that person his/her religion and god are garbage. If anything, we should have a little courtesy and avoid useless confrontation. It's like telling to the face of the mother of the girl you are wishing to marry the soup she prepared smells like pig shit on the first time you've been invited over. Then you tell the old lady she needs to grow a pair...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not going up to anyone's face and purposely pointing a finger at them, raising my voice and going "YOUR RELIGION IS ******* STUPID, BRO!". I'm saying in a general sense that religion is nonsense, nobody should be offended by it.

Atheists don't "believe" there is no God, you obviously don't get it. Do you BELIEVE there are no unicorns? Do you BELIEVE there are no dragons or whatever? No, there's simply no evidence for them. You have a LACK OF belief, there is no evidence to support the claim.

I don't BELIEVE that bigfoot DOESN'T exist, I simply have zero evidence that he DOES exist. There is no faith here, there is no belief here. It's purely evidence/common sense based. I'm OPEN to the idea of anything existing, and with evidence I will be more than happy to accept whatever is thrown my way. I don't BELIEVE that god DOESN'T exist, I have a LACK OF belief in his existence until evidence is shown. 

Atheists don't claim that "there's no way, no god, nope, no way, can't happen, period". We say there's no evidence for it, and until evidence is provided there's zero reason to believe that a god does exist.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> I'd say a wise man doesn't believe in things for which there is literally no evidence at all.


Most people don't have the opportunity to see or to understand what you see under your microscope, but you expect them to believe your words when it comes to the "evidences" you find in your lab.
In the other hand, people who has spiritual or mediunic experiences are labeled as crazy, since you won't care about the evidences that will come from their mouths.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Most people don't have the opportunity to see or to understand what you see under your microscope, but you expect them to believe your words when it comes to the "evidences" you find in your lab.


 I don't really care if they believe me, but the evidence is there, it exists, and they don't have to take my word for it.



> In the other hand, people who has spiritual or mediunic experiences are labeled as crazy, since you won't care about the evidences that will come from their mouths.


Because that's not evidence. Saying "God is real!" is not evidence that god is real, and they cannot provide evidence in the way that we can in a lab.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

M.C said:


> Atheists don't claim that "there's no way, no god, nope, no way, can't happen, period". We say there's no evidence for it, and until evidence is provided there's zero reason to believe that a god does exist.


I think *some* atheists do exactly that though.... I love your view on this, I share it... but not all atheists are like this, the vocal minority is what leaves the biggest impression, and the vocal minority of atheists are crazy.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)




----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

M.C said:


> Atheists don't claim that "there's no way, no god, nope, no way, can't happen, period". We say there's no evidence for it, and until evidence is provided there's zero reason to believe that a god does exist.


What you are referring to is an agnostic belief.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Spite said:


> What you are referring to is an agnostic belief.


Only in the same sense that you are agnostic toward leprechauns.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> I don't really care if they believe me, but the evidence is there, it exists, and they don't have to take my word for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's not evidence. Saying "God is real!" is not evidence that god is real, and they cannot provide evidence in the way that we can in a lab.


As I said, you can have the proof you want in your lab and passing that along will require your word for it. It doesn't mean spiritual experiences other people are having are any less real.


----------



## systemdnb (Dec 7, 2008)

Before even reading the link I knew this f'n dork was from Texas. I live in Dallas and it was super easy to tell. Sorry on behalf of every sane Texan.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Only in the same sense that you are agnostic toward leprechauns.


The Atheist "God does not exist"

The Agnostic "There is no proof that god exists"

Agnostics believe that humans cannot know anything outside of the physical realm, therefore you cannot not know for sure that a god exists. Leprechauns belong in the physical realm.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> As I said, you can have the proof you want in your lab and passing that along will require your word for it. It doesn't mean spiritual experiences other people are having are any less real.


They may well be having spiritual experiences, but those aren't evidence for the existence of a god. They could just as easily be evidence for a fugue state. Meanwhile, I can demonstrate pretty easily the basics of DNA->RNA->protein synthesis, for example. It doesn't just take place in my brain, like "spiritual experiences".


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Only in the same sense that you are agnostic toward leprechauns.


There are less stories about prophets wandering around proving the existence of leprechauns and unicorns. 

I mean... there are a few more reasons why Christianity has gained traction over the worship for unicorns, back in the times during and after when Jesus was said to walk the earth is what i am talking about, the people back then did believe, drawing from what they have seen, or what other people who were alive around that time claim to have seen. 

Sure... you can come up with many reason as to why this happened, Maybe jesus was just a really early version of David Blane... but you don't seriously think its the same as having faith in unicorns do you? There is at least some historic backing to this belief... 

Its obviously not proof, but people once thought they did have that proof... Thats enough for some, its hard to prove much from that long ago, if only someone had thought to whip there phone out and push record.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> I'm not going up to anyone's face and purposely pointing a finger at them, raising my voice and going "YOUR RELIGION IS ******* STUPID, BRO!".


But,... that was the example you gave. :confused02:



M.C said:


> If I tell you that you religion is garbage, that the stories are fairy tales, I'm telling you this - the religion is garbage and the stories are fairy tales.


Or you meant would email that message to the person, instead?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Spite said:


> The Atheist "God does not exist"
> 
> The Agnostic "There is no proof that god exists"
> 
> Agnostics believe that humans cannot know anything outside of the physical realm, therefore you cannot not know for sure that a god exists. Leprechauns belong in the physical realm.


The atheist: "Given the proof available I have to come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity"

The agnostic: "I feel the same way, but am more concerned about hurting the feelings of theists so I'll act completely ridiculously about this one topic while scoffing at the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and leprechauns for which there is equal proof"


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

HexRei said:


> They may well be having spiritual experiences, but those aren't evidence for the existence of a god. They could just as easily be evidence for a fugue state. Meanwhile, I can demonstrate pretty easily the basics of DNA->RNA->protein synthesis, for example. It doesn't just take place in my brain, like "spiritual experiences".


Does your assumption that God (and by God I don't mean a bloke with a beard sat on a cloud) doesn't exist go hand in hand with there being nothing after physical death?

Basically, by not believing in God, do you also not believe in the possibility of life after physical death?


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Religion IS terrorism.


----------



## Old school fan (Aug 24, 2011)

Real christian this guy is.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

HexRei said:


> The atheist: "Given the proof available I have to come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity"
> 
> The agnostic: "I feel the same way, but am more concerned about hurting the feelings of theists so I'll act completely ridiculously about this one topic while scoffing at the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and leprechauns for which there is equal proof"


Agnostic is a broader term than Atheist.

For example an Agnostic person may believe in God but acknowledge the fact that they cannot prove he exists.

Anyways, the Loch Ness Monster does exist. I saw it with my own eyes when I was trippin after a rave up in Scotland.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Joabbuac said:


> I think *some* atheists do exactly that though.... I love your view on this, I share it... but not all atheists are like this, the vocal minority is what leaves the biggest impression, and the vocal minority of atheists are crazy.


I don't think they do. I think they might come off that way, atheists can get aggressive a lot of the time so their thoughts don't come out as clearly as they would otherwise have.

I heard this example from someone, I can't remember who, it was a documentary or a debate or a press conference or a book or whatever, I got this from somewhere and it made sense to me. There are a couple flaws with it, it's meant as an example rather than a pin-point comparison. In spoil tags:




Say we are in an alternate dimension where everything in the world is exactly the same, same politics, same earth, same people and animals, it's 99.9% exactly the same, except for 2 notable differences:

1. Religion/God was never created
2. The stork theory (babies come from the stork) was the present, believed method of childbirth according to 70% of the people in your country.

Now, nobody has ever seen a magic stork, nobody has any evidence that magic storks exist, nobody has any evidence to prove any part of the stork theory exists anywhere, or that magic exists at all. However, the belief is that at night, if the stork deems you worthy, he sneaks into your bed and sprinkles magical baby-making dust on a woman's belly and POOF, 9 months later you have a baby.

For the last few hundred years, along comes a bunch of people that figured out our biology and came to the conclusion that it's very reasonable to think that sex is the cause of childbirth. These same people have given us our medicine, our technology, they have progressed our society to what it is today. They have never found - ANY - evidence for magic, or supernatural forces. Not once. They have done nothing but help the world and evolve our species and what they say about our biology makes a lot of sense when it comes to having a child, they say they can even replicate it/show us what's happening in a test/model.

...yet the 70% will defend to their grave that the stork theory is in fact the right way to look at things, and that childbirth and life is so beautiful, it could only come from such a majestic creature as the magic stork. How could it be anything else, it's so beautiful after all? When shown all the evidence and biology and counters to this theory, they close their eyes, shake their head, and say "nope, I don't care what you say, my belief in the stork theory is so strong nothing can shake it". 

Now, keep in mind, the 70% are using their belief of the stork theory to pass laws in their country. They are using their belief to shut down gay people's rights, they are using this belief to tell people how to raise their children, they are using this theory to vote people into public office who will then make choices based off this theory.

So, now, think of the 30% running around having to listen to the stork theory everywhere they go. Think about every time someone wants a baby they hear them say "oh honey, I sure hope the stork deems me worthy and shows up tonight!", every time someone looks at your kid, they say "aw, what a miracle of the stork!". Every time they turn on the TV to watch some politics, every other word is "what would the Stork think about that"? At some point, you're going to get so damn frustrated and annoyed at these "storkers" that anytime the conversation of "stork" comes up, you want to just kick them in the throat. Anytime someone talks about it, you call the whole thing stupid and nonsense and garbage, and you wish the whole damn thing would disappear because it's damaging societies ability to progress forward, and it's damaging how the country is run, among many other things. 

It's very easy to understand why atheists can be overly aggressive and annoyed, you are literally surrounded by people who believe in the equivalent of the stork theory. It's frustrating to no end for a lot of people. Luckily, there are also many who are able to suppress this frustration and just shrug and go "meh", and go about their lives. So, the whole idea of atheists going "**** YOUR GOD", you have to look at it from their perspective. How annoyed would you be if 70% of the adults walking around you believed that babies came from the stork despite all evidence (and just common sense in general) saying otherwise? My guess is after a while, you'd turn red just at the mention of the almighty stork theory. You would get used it eventually, though, as most of us do.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Spite said:


> Agnostic is a broader term than Atheist.
> 
> For example an Agnostic person may believe in God but acknowledge the fact that they cannot prove he exists.
> 
> Anyways, the Loch Ness Monster does exist. I saw it with my own eyes when I was trippin after a rave up in Scotland.


What's the term for someone who wouldn't be surprised at all if a creator exists but is 100% convinced that the different religions know nothing about nothing about his true nature?



Syfy junkie? :thumb02:


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

M.C said:


> I don't think they do. I think they might come off that way, atheists can get aggressive a lot of the time so their thoughts don't come out as clearly as they would otherwise have.
> 
> I heard this example from someone, I can't remember who, it was a documentary or a debate or a press conference or a book or whatever, I got this from somewhere and it made sense to me. There are a couple flaws with it, it's meant as an example rather than a pin-point comparison. In spoil tags:
> 
> ...


I get that... It does make me grateful i live in a less religious country. I have stumbled upon a few well meaning personal FB pages online that attribute everything to the all mighty god...and i can't help but think "wooow you are seriously fukin crazy" nice, well meaning, kinda stupid people, who could certainly drive me to telling them how awful i think they are. 

I really would struggle to live with people like that all the time.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> They may well be having spiritual experiences, but those aren't evidence for the existence of a god. They could just as easily be evidence for a fugue state. Meanwhile, I can demonstrate pretty easily the basics of DNA->RNA->protein synthesis, for example. *It doesn't just take place in my brain, like "spiritual experiences".*


Take place in your brain only? Man, I can see you don't know the first thing about spirituality same way most people don't know the first thing about DNA.

The existence of mental disorders don't exclude actual spiritual experiences people have at daily basis and vice versa. 

One thing complete the other. In my POV, all is science(or lack of it). I have a science degree of my own, but I reckon the physical part we've learned about our existence is nothing but just a tiny part of what's out there.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Take place in your brain only? Man, I can see you don't know the first thing about spirituality same way most people don't know the first thing about DNA.
> 
> The existence of mental disorders don't exclude actual spiritual experiences people have at daily basis and vice versa.
> 
> One thing complete the other. In my POV, all is science(or lack of it). I have a science degree of my own, but I reckon the physical part we've learned about our existence is nothing but just a tiny part of what's out there.


I know more about spirituality than the average person I think, I've read the bible cover to cover on a dare from my dad, read the entire book of mormon because my best friend was a proselytizing mormon, I was raised christian until about 12 when I realized this church thing was a giant waste of time and my grandmother told me if I wasn't going to go to church I had to spend the time reading about other faiths and metaphysics, so I read a different book every week and have a pretty broad religious education. I was raised in a family that is very spiritual.

None of that really matters though, because the simple fact is that "spiritual experiences" really are in people's heads, at least insofar as they cannot be demonstrated empirically to be events related to spirituality or a deity. If they could be, they would be part of science.



ReptilianSlayer said:


> Does your assumption that God (and by God I don't mean a bloke with a beard sat on a cloud) doesn't exist go hand in hand with there being nothing after physical death?
> 
> Basically, by not believing in God, do you also not believe in the possibility of life after physical death?


I don't know. The afterlife is something that with our current technology and understanding is outside the realm of empirical science, and I try to avoid beliefs without a foundation in evidence because, well, that's how crazy people are made. Metaphysics are cool and all, but they also sometimes feel like mental masturbation.

Regardless, as far as I can tell there is no way to know without dying, so it's not really all that important to me. That will happen to all of us sooner or later no matter what we do, so why worry?


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

oldfan said:


> What's the term for someone who wouldn't be surprised at all if a creator exists but is 100% convinced that the different religions know nothing about nothing about his true nature?
> 
> 
> 
> Syfy junkie? :thumb02:


Thats agnostic.

For the record I'm not religious, but I acknowledge that I cannot 100% prove there is no god. Nobody can prove there is no God, it's impossible.

Heres a little brain fúck for you.

Some people believe that we are not real, but simulations inside a computer. The theory is backed by scientists.

Heres how it works.

There are somethings that you have to acknowledge, but are easy things to acknowledge.


Computers are becoming more advanced
Artificial Intelligence is becoming more advanced
We can currently run simulations on computers with A.I characters, there are even computer games that do that now
In the future we will be able to create A.I that 100% believes it is Human and living in a real world
Computers will become so advanced they will be able to run billions of variations of this AI in a system, even creating multiple universes

What if that scenario has already happened and we are just AI inside a program?

What would the likelihood be that we are real? Well, assuming that there is just one guy operating the computer you could say - Earth population 7.3 Billion. So 7.3 billion to 1 that you are a real person.

Don't get me wrong - it's an 'out there' theory, but one that cannot be disproved.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Does your assumption that God (and by God I don't mean a bloke with a beard sat on a cloud) doesn't exist go hand in hand with there being nothing after physical death?
> 
> Basically, by not believing in God, do you also not believe in the possibility of life after physical death?


We all know what it's like to not exist (be dead, not have life, have no physical or mental function). We all had no life before we were born. That is our very best evidence as to what happens when your life ends. Your life was not there before, you were born and had life, and now you again no longer have life once you die.

There's no reason to think life after death will be any different than life before you were alive - nothingness, a black void, billions of years pass and you're not even aware of it. You didn't exist/had no life, you were born and existed/had life, then you died/no longer had life again.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Spite said:


> Thats agnostic.
> 
> For the record I'm not religious, but I acknowledge that I cannot 100% prove there is no god. Nobody can prove there is no God, it's impossible.
> 
> ...


Just because you can't disprove a hypothesis doesn't actually mean its true or even worth paying attention to necessarily, though. You can't prove that there isn't an invisible, intangible pink elephant floating over your head all the time, were I to assure you that I knew it was there. It doesn't mean you should buy it peanuts either though.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

@M.C., go through this thread. You, HexRei, slapshot and more have decided "I see the word God in the title, it is now my sworn duty to post about how awful and unintelligent religion is".

Why did you guys have to post that? Did you gain something from it? The thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious beliefs or if religion is good or bad, it's about one ridiculously hypocritical guy putting too much stock into MMA.

That's what annoys me about atheism. @ReptilianSlayer's example with eating meat is actually very close to it. He feels it's somewhat his duty to stop people from eating animals. So you and me feel fine going and getting a burger, but he fires in and starts annoying us with "Meat is murder" and we scoff at him. Any mention of eating meat will get his back up, and we dislike that. Yet at the mere presence of seeing God in the title, you and these other guys felt like coming in to post whatever the more condescending analogies you could whip up on the spot were.

And I know this cause I did this. I got the internet in 2007, so I basically spent most of my time on the internet following the rivalries of VenomFangX Vs Amazing Atheist. I was the "rebellious teen" who basically read word for word the bible so I could basically highlight things I found to be contradictions. Now VenomFangX is different because he believes in the fundamental word of the bible. Like he believes Adam and Eve existed on the planet (cause it's not like any religious figure would ever tell a 'parable') and stuff. But none the less, I dedicated large portions of my time to anti-religion. I actually had the audacity to call myself a "realist" as if it was my religious belief. I would say to my religion teacher "Hey, how come God says at Leviticus 18:BlahBlah he says not to lay with your mum, but surely Cain and Able had to do just that?". Poor bird had no reply, like I can erase that by saying "Jesus died, absolving us of said sins" but she had nothing for me in those regards. Why did I feel that burning desire to challenge her beliefs? I believe that beliefs are there to be challenged but I don't believe it's my role to challenge someone else's.

If someone wants to believe something without harming another, then that's fine. Why do I need to challenge that or insult that belief? Who am I to do that? I don't believe in ghosts. I'm not in church or have went through any religious ceremonies. I don't believe in a lot of shit. But I no longer feel like it's my duty to insult or challenge anyone else's belief.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> We all know what it's like to not exist (be dead, not have life, have no physical or mental function). We all had no life before we were born. That is our very best evidence as to what happens when your life ends. Your life was not there before, you were born and had life, and now you again no longer have life once you die.
> 
> There's no reason to think life after death will be any different than life before you were alive - nothingness, a black void, billions of years pass and you're not even aware of it. You didn't exist/had no life, you were born and existed/had life, then you died/no longer had life again.


You are talking about your body.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> @M.C., go through this thread. You, HexRei, slapshot and more have decided "I see the word God in the title, it is now my sworn duty to post about how awful and unintelligent religion is".
> 
> Why did you guys have to post that? Did you gain something from it? The thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious beliefs or if religion is good or bad, it's about one ridiculously hypocritical guy putting too much stock into MMA.
> 
> ...


The thread is about a pastor and God and religion. Of course we're commenting on it.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You are talking about your body.


Where's the evidence that shows the mind is separate from the body? We know that a person's personality is based on brain function, as is their memories. You can injure your brain and completely alter your personality forever, or lose all your memories. Every single part of "you" is connected to your brain and be altered if your physical brain is altered. Where's the evidence that shows that there's anything BUT a physical body? There is none, and in fact the evidence shows the human body is all that there is.

Your MIND (brain) is dead and does not have life. You are born, as is your brain, as is your life. You then die, your brain dies, and so does your life.

There's zero reason or evidence to show that your body and mind are two different things, as such there's no reason to believe that your mind doesn't simply goes into darkness the same way it was before you were born.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> @M.C., go through this thread. You, HexRei, slapshot and more have decided "I see the word God in the title, it is now my sworn duty to post about how awful and unintelligent religion is".
> 
> Why did you guys have to post that? Did you gain something from it? The thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious beliefs or if religion is good or bad, it's about one ridiculously hypocritical guy putting too much stock into MMA.
> 
> ...


Well I don't know about what it's like in Scotland or Ireland or wherever the hell you are now, but here in America Christianity is not a quiet, unassuming faith. I mean some are, but there are also lots of very, very loud, angry Christians- Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist is an egregious example but not even close to the only one. I mean we just recently decided to legalize gay marriage as a nation, and really the only barrier to it was condemnation and lobbying from the religious right. I volunteered for two years at a women's clinic and watched religious people harass and in a few cases literally attack women who were coming and going. Texas's gradeschool textbooks are hilariously unscientific because of lobbyists who want to treat creationism like an established science.

They can believe whatever they want to, but when it begins affecting our education, our laws, there are always going to be people who will not just smile and nod.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> I know more about spirituality than the average person I think, I've read the bible cover to cover on a dare from my dad, read the entire book of mormon because my best friend was a proselytizing mormon, I was raised christian until about 12 when I realized this church thing was a giant waste of time and my grandmother told me if I wasn't going to go to church I had to spend the time reading about other faiths and metaphysics, so I read a different book every week and have a pretty broad religious education. I was raised in a family that is very spiritual.
> 
> None of that really matters though, because the simple fact is that "spiritual experiences" really are in people's heads, at least insofar as they cannot be demonstrated empirically to be events related to spirituality or a deity. If they could be, they would be part of science.


You know about spirituality because you've read books? That's not the point at all. You can read all the books you want and still don't have any spirituality. Damn, there are priests who are anything but spiritualists.

You did not have any spiritual experience, that's OK, many people don't have them and your field in science is DNA, which is basically a tiny element that compose our physical bodies, but how can you assume there are no people studing spirituality or making spiritual experiences and documenting the results? Have you ever heard about Allan Kardec?
A scientist and a professor who at a certain point devoted his live exclusively to research those paranormal phenomenons.

Some of those things were really revolutionary at the time. Today, just a routine to many people, me included, and I don't need to give up any of the science I've learned in my life.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Just because you can't disprove a hypothesis doesn't actually mean its true or even worth paying attention to necessarily, though. You can't prove that there isn't an invisible, intangible pink elephant floating over your head all the time, were I to assure you that I knew it was there. It doesn't mean you should buy it peanuts either though.


Indeed I should not buy it peanuts. But the simulation theory has scientific merit, so much so that scientific papers have been written about it. I'm not saying I believe it, I don't. But I could not 100% prove that it's not true, the same way that someone who believes they are living in simulation can not prove it to be true.

Heres a little fact about the lochness monster for you.

It was actually a monster, or at least it was to the people at the time.












There was a circus in town around about the time of the original sightings, you guessed it... an elephant escaped.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Younknow about spirituality because you've read books? That's not the point at all. You can read all the books you want and still don't have any spirituality. Damn, there are priests who are anything but spiritualists.
> 
> You did not have any spiritual experience, that's OK, many people don't have them and your field in science is DNA, which is basically a tiny element that compose our physical bodies, but how can you assume there are no people studing spirituality or making spiritual experiences and documenting the results? Have you ever heard about Allan Kardec?
> A scientist and a professor who at a certain point devoted his live exclusively to research those paranormal phenomenons.
> ...


Documenting something doesnt mean its real. I could make a documentary about leprechaun encounters, get people to explain all about their experiences, it doesn't mean they really happened.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> Where's the evidence that shows the mind is separate from the body? We know that a person's personality is based on brain function, as is their memories. You can injure your brain and completely alter your personality forever, or lose all your memories. Every single part of "you" is connected to your brain and be altered if your physical brain is altered. Where's the evidence that shows that there's anything BUT a physical body? There is none, and in fact the evidence shows the human body is all that there is.
> 
> Your MIND (brain) is dead and does not have life. You are born, as is your brain, as is your life. You then die, your brain dies, and so does your life.
> 
> There's zero reason or evidence to show that your body and mind are two different things, as such there's no reason to believe that your mind doesn't simply goes into darkness the same way it was before you were born.


Lets see this way. I am talking to you right now. We are exchanging ideas. If I want to show a picture to you, I can go to the internet or get it from my hard drive and post here. 

Or, I am talking to you via skype and you are hearing my voice and my ideas can be passed as easy as in a conversation.

Well, if something happens to my computer, a surge of power, a virus attack, it could spoil its operation to the point I can't no longer get that picure from my HD, memory problem, and if the Skype connection starts to fail, you will be hearing just mumbling noises from my end, althoug I am speaking perfectly fine from here and if my computer finally crashes forever, I won't be able to talk to you anymore, but, I am still here. I didn't die.

Of course you need every function of your physical body to operate at this realm. Your body is just what it is. A vehicle. And although your attitude and personality can be altered by countless disorders, even hunger, it doesn't mean your body is the source of your personality.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Spite said:


> Indeed I should not buy it peanuts. But the simulation theory has scientific merit, so much so that scientific papers have been written about it. I'm not saying I believe it, I don't. But I could not 100% prove that it's not true, the same way that someone who believes they are living in simulation can not prove it to be true.
> 
> Heres a little fact about the lochness monster for you.
> 
> ...


I'm actually familiar with the theory, I am a total nerd after all, but the problem is that it is untestable so even if people think it's likely... there's no way to know, and it functionally doesnt have any impact on our lives. Fun to think about though.

I'd never seen that particular theory about Nessie, interesting stuff.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Lets see this way. I am talking to you right now. We are exchanging ideas. If I want to show a picture to you, I can go to the internet or get it from my hard drive and post here.
> 
> Or, I am talking to you via skype and you are hearing my voice and my ideas can be passed as easy as in a conversation.
> 
> ...


So you're saying there's an invisible, untested, unrequired, unneeded, completely hypothetical non-evidence based magical hard drive in the sky that streams our personality to our bodies?

I could also tell you that there's a magical creature that half dragon, half bumble bee, who speaks in C++ who does that same job, and he lives in my back yard. They are both equally plausible. 

The reality is, there's no evidence for either of them - anywhere, and believing in such a thing is pure, as Hex said, mental masturbation. It's nothing more than a wishful fantasy until even a shred of evidence is provided. 

Our best evidence is that I said, we know exactly what it's like to not be alive, we've all not been alive, and when you die - you're not alive. Is that what happens? I have no idea. What I do know is that it's a thousand times more plausible than the magic computer hard drive.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Well I don't know about what it's like in Scotland or Ireland or wherever the hell you are now, but here in America Christianity is not a quiet, unassuming faith. I mean some are, but there are also lots of very, very loud, angry Christians- Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist is an egregious example but not even close to the only one. I mean we just recently decided to legalize gay marriage as a nation, and really the only barrier to it was condemnation and lobbying from the religious right. I volunteered for two years at a women's clinic and watched religious people harass and in a few cases literally attack women who were coming and going. Texas's gradeschool textbooks are hilariously unscientific because of lobbyists who want to treat creationism like an established science.
> 
> They can believe whatever they want to, but when it begins affecting our education, our laws, there are always going to be people who will not just smile and nod.


I agree that religion should have absolutely no role in education or laws. I also agree that it would be annoying to have someone force their beliefs upon you, as it has been for me. But that's it, it's annoying. I can take people on a case by case value. Someone attacking a woman isn't about religion, they individually chose to do that. It's like the race related shooting where people care more about the skin colour of the victim and perpetrator as opposed to the fact that murder just took place. That person might be fuelled by some warped notion that his religion says this is cool, but that speaks volumes about the individual, not the existence of organised religion.

Take the Islamic extremists. People act like Islam is about hatred and cruelty as a result of these nut jobs. People care less about the acts these sick fuks are committing and more about the warped reason they did it. It's like blaming GTA for a school shooting cause the kid said he wants to be like Trevor in a blog post that day or something.

Some religious people annoy the hell out of me. My aunty who thinks that she would bring religious statues to my house when we move or to someone who gets a car or something. We don't share your faith dear, so why are you giving us this stuff? I've also found myself biting my tongue at phrases such as "So many people say they have seen ghosts, they must be true" where as I wanted to rip into her with "So many people say they have seen Allah too".

I just realized I'm a massive hypocrit. Disregard all of my posts here. The reason?

I will spend several hours straight shouting in someone's face if they believe in hypnotism (not like hypnotherapy), tarot cards, astrology or fortune tellers.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Documenting something doesnt mean its real. I could make a documentary about leprechaun encounters, get people to explain all about their experiences, it doesn't mean they really happened.


Pffft. There are lots of documentaries about DNA. What that does even mean to most people? If Kardec is a charlatan for you because he reseached a different area of science from you that shows some insecurities from youe end. Spiritualists don't negate science, they add up things.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I agree that religion should have absolutely no role in education or laws. I also agree that it would be annoying to have someone force their beliefs upon you, as it has been for me. But that's it, it's annoying. I can take people on a case by case value. Someone attacking a woman isn't about religion, they individually chose to do that. It's like the race related shooting where people care more about the skin colour of the victim and perpetrator as opposed to the fact that murder just took place. That person might be fuelled by some warped notion that his religion says this is cool, but that speaks volumes about the individual, not the existence of organised religion.
> 
> Take the Islamic extremists. People act like Islam is about hatred and cruelty as a result of these nut jobs. People care less about the acts these sick fuks are committing and more about the warped reason they did it. It's like blaming GTA for a school shooting cause the kid said he wants to be like Trevor in a blog post that day or something.
> 
> ...


Are you telling me you don't believe people are literally talking to the dead or able to accurately tell your future by looking at a pair of cards you can buy online for 5 bucks?

DOWN WITH YOUR SCIENCE, YOU BLASPHEMER!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> *So you're saying there's an invisible, untested, unrequired, unneeded, completely hypothetical non-evidence based magical hard drive in the sky that streams our personality to our bodies?*
> *That is called your soul.*
> I could also tell you that there's a magical creature that half dragon, half bumble bee, who speaks in C++ who does that same job, and he lives in my back yard. They are both equally plausible.
> 
> ...


There's no evidence for you, and you are not interested in looking for them. That's fine, but me, in the other hand, had and have evidence of the other side routinely, and guess what, all other natural scientific laws remain intact for my daily operation around here.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Pffft. There are lots of documentaries about DNA. What that does even mean to most people? If Kardec is a charlatan for you because he reseached a different area of science from you that shows some insecurities from youe end. Spiritualists don't negate science, they add up things.


He's not researching a science, though. Spirituality is not a science.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

There was a TV show on once saying "These people attempt to prove that Mary Magdalen and Jesus were married". I laughed thinking "Maybe they should kick that off with the proving Jesus existed part".


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> There's no evidence for you, and you are not interested in looking for them. That's fine, but me, in the other hand, had and have evidence of the other side routinely, and guess what, all other natural scientific laws remain intact for my daily operation around here.


I've looked for evidence the same way I've looked for evidence for everything else in the world - there is none. The "soul" isn't real until proven otherwise. Do you know what a kabllerblab is? No? Me neither, but it might be out there, we just don't claim it's real because there's no evidence that whatever a kabllerblab is, exists. 

On a separate note, this is where the religion argument completely dies, by the way. When all evidence points in one direction, and the only thing a religious mind can say is "well, my personal experience, so....." Okay, you can have your personal experience. Keep it out of my schools, keep it out of my politics, keep it out of my laws, keep it out of the daily life of everyone around you if they don't want it there. If all religious people did that, you'd never hear a peep from an atheist again, nobody is against your own personal home belief. 

You can't argue against personal belief, because if a man says his personal belief is that rocks are intelligent beings but we don't know about it because a witch cast a spell on them a long time ago and turned them to stone, well, we can't disprove that either. When a debate hits the "well..my personal belief....no evidence anywhere but it's my belief" barrier, it's pretty much done.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

M.C said:


> Are you telling me you don't believe people are literally talking to the dead or able to accurately tell your future by looking at a pair of cards you can buy online for 5 bucks?
> 
> DOWN WITH YOUR SCIENCE, YOU BLASPHEMER!


Yeah as I said, I need to take it all back because I'm doing the same thing. Even the positives which religion give a person, some absolute bullshit "medium" gives the same positives and yet I couldn't make it through a conversation of someone telling me they had an absolutely accurate reading. Complete hypocrite.

Sportsman, here is the breakdown of what you have; blind faith. There's nothing wrong this that. I personally envy people who can take so much solace from religion. I struggle with it at times and know that upon being diagnosed with cancer or something, I could find no comfort in religion. But there is ZERO evidence of anything to do with any organised religion every existing. You can't tell M.C. he's wrong and say things like souls exist because they haven't had any proof to them. They haven't been disproved for sure, and you are completely fine to take that belief. But M.C. isn't wrong in saying that there is nothing to prove any spiritual existence. You are free to believe what you want but the reason guys like Hex and M.C. start to get pissed off is when someone who has no factual basis for their argument tells them they are wrong in their assessments. This is your belief, not theirs, and that's okay.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

HexRei said:


> I'm actually familiar with the theory, I am a total nerd after all, but the problem is that it is untestable so even if people think it's likely... there's no way to know, and it functionally doesnt have any impact on our lives. Fun to think about though.
> 
> I'd never seen that particular theory about Nessie, interesting stuff.


I love watching/listening to the likes of Brian Cox, Neil De-Grasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking.

I don't know why I bother though, I swear trying to take it all in just makes me stupider.



ClydebankBlitz said:


> Some religious people annoy the hell out of me.


You know what I've always found odd about religious types.

They all agree there is a god.

But if you say that you've seen him they all think you're full of shit at best, you're off to the loony bin at worst.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Spite said:


> You know what I've always found odd about religious types.
> 
> They all agree there is a god.
> 
> But if you say that you've seen him they all think you're full of shit at best, you're off to the loony bin at worst.


The greatest thing ever would be if Jesus returned to earth (obviously proving Christianity to be real) and everyone was like "Complete bollocks, no way you're Jesus". He turns water to wine and people are like "Penn and Teller did that too, what else you got?" :laugh:


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Spite said:


> I love watching/listening to the likes of Brian Cox, Neil De-Grasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking.
> 
> I don't know why I bother though, I swear trying to take it all in just makes me stupider.
> 
> ...


I've actually been watching a ton of Tyson lately, just got through Cosmos and some presentations. Space is such an amazing place. I always knew how big it was (or rather a general idea), but he put it in a way that just "popped" in my mind.

Watch this video when you get free time if you haven't seen it already, it really puts it into proper perspective (spoil tags).


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

M.C said:


> I've actually been watching a ton of Tyson lately, just got through Cosmos and some presentations. Space is such an amazing place. I always knew how big it was (or rather a general idea), but he put it in a way that just "popped" in my mind.
> 
> Watch this video when you get free time if you haven't seen it already, it really puts it into proper perspective (spoil tags).


Will watch it tomorrow morning. BTW enjoyed the Chris Hadfield with Rogan podcast you recommended.

If you get stuck for something to watch try 'Human Universe' with Brian Cox, mind blowing stuff. Not sure it's on youtube but even if it was you're better off downloading a proper HD version, as no expense has been spared making the Doc.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> He's not researching a science, though. Spirituality is not a science.


Spirituality isn't a science because there is no official studies about it? So, do I require official permission from someone to do my own researches? 




M.C said:


> I've looked for evidence the same way I've looked for evidence for everything else in the world - there is none. The "soul" isn't real until proven otherwise. Do you know what a kabllerblab is? No? Me neither, but it might be out there, we just don't claim it's real because there's no evidence that whatever a kabllerblab is, exists.
> 
> On a separate note, this is where the religion argument completely dies, by the way. When all evidence points in one direction, and the only thing a religious mind can say is "well, my personal experience, so....." Okay, you can have your personal experience. Keep it out of my schools, keep it out of my politics, keep it out of my laws, keep it out of the daily life of everyone around you if they don't want it there. If all religious people did that, you'd never hear a peep from an atheist again, nobody is against your own personal home belief.
> 
> You can't argue against personal belief, because if a man says his personal belief is that rocks are intelligent beings but we don't know about it because a witch cast a spell on them a long time ago and turned them to stone, well, we can't disprove that either. When a debate hits the "well..my personal belief....no evidence anywhere but it's my belief" barrier, it's pretty much done.


I am not pointing at no religion at all or defending none at all. I am not supporting that schools should teach about the Bible or the Al Koran or claiming reading those books are evidence of spiritual experience.




ClydebankBlitz said:


> Yeah as I said, I need to take it all back because I'm doing the same thing. Even the positives which religion give a person, some absolute bullshit "medium" gives the same positives and yet I couldn't make it through a conversation of someone telling me they had an absolutely accurate reading. Complete hypocrite.
> 
> Sportsman, here is the breakdown of what you have; blind faith. There's nothing wrong this that. I personally envy people who can take so much solace from religion. I struggle with it at times and know that upon being diagnosed with cancer or something, I could find no comfort in religion. But there is ZERO evidence of anything to do with any organised religion every existing. You can't tell M.C. he's wrong and say things like souls exist because they haven't had any proof to them. They haven't been disproved for sure, and you are completely fine to take that belief. But M.C. isn't wrong in saying that there is nothing to prove any spiritual existence. You are free to believe what you want but the reason guys like Hex and M.C. start to get pissed off is when someone who has no factual basis for their argument tells them they are wrong in their assessments. This is your belief, not theirs, and that's okay.


No, if there's something I don't have is blind faith. I always been a challenging person looking for evidence. It happens that, in a moment of my life, I married a woman who is a medium and I have two daughters who are sensitive and I got in touch with many things I never realized they where there. It was frightening in the beginning , but relieving also and when I talk about those things I have no other intention but to bring a little hope to people who, like me years ago, think they are living a bottomless life.

Again, I am not pointing to no religion at all.

Edit: A whole paragragh? That's it. I am returning this iPad to Apple Store.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Spirituality isn't a science because there is no official studies about it? So, do I require official permission from someone to do my own researches?


 It needs to be quantifiable, and it really isn't. I guess if you really want to quibble it could be a very, very soft science. Like Egon in Ghostbusters does science.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Atheism and scientism is every bit as dogmatic as religion.


No, science is fundamentally different to religion. Its basic principle of gaining knowledge is to try to DISPROVE your own theory.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> The absence of believe is not a believe? If you believe there's nothing out there, isn't that a belief? Why then we are so used to see some talk shows about religion bringing in representants of Catholicism, Islamism, Bhudism,....., AND atheists?


Yes, the absence of belief is not a belief. Not believing is as much a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Most people don't have the opportunity to see or to understand what you see under your microscope, but you expect them to believe your words when it comes to the "evidences" you find in your lab.
> In the other hand, people who has spiritual or mediunic experiences are labeled as crazy, since you won't care about the evidences that will come from their mouths.





Sportsman 2.0 said:


> As I said, you can have the proof you want in your lab and passing that along will require your word for it. It doesn't mean spiritual experiences other people are having are any less real.


The difference is reproducibility. Everyone could take a microscope and look what's under it. He could invite people into his lab and show them what's under the microscope. You can get a blue print on the Internet, construct your own microscope and look what's under it. Same installation => same results. You can't do that with spiritual experiences.



Joabbuac said:


> There are less stories about prophets wandering around proving the existence of leprechauns and unicorns.
> 
> I mean... there are a few more reasons why Christianity has gained traction over the worship for unicorns, back in the times during and after when Jesus was said to walk the earth is what i am talking about, the people back then did believe, drawing from what they have seen, or what other people who were alive around that time claim to have seen.
> 
> ...


Most of the stories that are the basis of Christianity are actually just rewritten stories of stories that had been there before. 

Summary:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> It needs to be quantifiable, and it really isn't. I guess if you really want to quibble it could be a very, very soft science. Like Egon in Ghostbusters does science.


Got it. There's only a certain limit you permitted yourself to learn in this life.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Got it. There's only a certain limit you permitted yourself to learn in this life.


I have no idea how that is what you took away from my comment.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> I have no idea how that is what you took away from my comment.


Sorry, but I took it as if you were mocking me. If you are no longer interested in having this conversation, that's ok.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman, I clicked like for the last line lmao. You've got a few gems, I'll give you that.


I already said something about mediums before and with being your bird, I'll leave out my thoughts on that side of stuff cause as I said, I'm hypocritical in defending religion but being against things like mediums.

The blind faith is believing that the person you are praying to is a sentient being. I am like everyone else. I can say what I want but looking around, it's really an absolutely incredible thing that we all just "evolved" by some form of biological password hacker that was running numbers until the right ones clicked to form humanity. The complexity of child birth alone is just absolutely stunning to have developed, so sure, I look at things like that and think "Man, that's really an INSANE piece of growth". Also, we all have the "How are we even here in the first place? What was that FIRST thing?". But really, believing that a sentient being was the father of all of this is really not the only possible conclusion. I feel that explaining the universe would likely be something humanity will never achieve. I imagine teaching humanity the ins and outs of how the universe came to be would be like leaving a the development of a rocket ship in the hands of a single puppy. It just wouldn't happen. Questions like "What if there was no beginning, what if the universe was ALWAYS here?" alone are hard to wrap your head around because every single aspect of the human brain is programmed a certain way and we won't really be able to understand any pattern that doesn't have a beginning.

It's all just absolutely bonkers. But in summary, to believe that you (and me, I'm lying if I said I don't pray myself at times) are actually talking to a living, breathing and sentient being who is taking in out information is nothing other than absolute, undenying blind faith. If you tell me that your bird has PROVEN to you the existence of the after life, bring her to some sort of scientific testing facility and have her prove this scientifically. There was a girl on Youtube who predicted, with absolutely no knowledge of weather effects, the tsunami in Japan down to an absolute TEE just one week before it happened. INCREDIBLE. She then made a second prediction. It didn't happen. Had she left that at one prediction, she would have had what appeared to be the ability to tell the future. It was an incredible prediction. But her second shot at it disproved the spiritual side of things. Sometimes information you receive that can appear to be so real isn't as such, which is why I wouldn't believe in mediums. I've said for years, if no one knows I'm going to a medium, I use a fake name, and not a single person there knows me, I would put every single penny I have in the world down that the medium would not be able to tell me information about me or my life, and even more so they wouldn't even try.
@Voiceless, I haven't seen the video in years but there was a cracking video when I was into my blasphemy days showing Jesus Christ and half of his stories and monikers to be identical or extremely similar to those of prophets and Gods that came before him in other religions, specifically from Egyptian mythos. Here's one video similar to that but in a smaller capacity.






Not that it proves anything about religion. The thing I feel everyone should remember in regards to the bible is that it was only ghostwritten by God, and physically written by man on earth.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Erm.

All I'm going to say is, blind belief in trickle down economics, austerity, foreign and domestic policy, war in the middle east, the patriot act, NDAA and other economic and political policies. Blind belief in politicians, the government, scientists, experts and other institutions are far more damaging than blind belief in invsible unicorns or religion.

Religion for the most part is just a scapegoat the public is encouraged to blame to prevent them from focusing on issues that are really important.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Sorry, but I took it as if you were mocking me. If you are no longer interested in having this conversation, that's ok.


Sportsman you will always me on my homey list, I was just saying that spiritual experiences don't really fall into the realm of sciences because they are inherently mystical and metaphysical. It's actually not an insult, it's just a descriptor. There's plenty of room for discussion and rumination about things that aren't hard science.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Trix said:


> Erm.
> 
> All I'm going to say is, blind belief in trickle down economics, austerity, foreign and domestic policy, war in the middle east, the patriot act, NDAA and other economic and political policies. Blind belief in politicians, the government, scientists, experts and other institutions are far more damaging than blind belief in invsible unicorns or religion.
> 
> Religion for the most part is just a scapegoat the public is encouraged to blame to prevent them from focusing on issues that are really important.


Would rep but nobody does that shit anymore 

Jk... need to spread.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

M.C said:


> We all know what it's like to not exist (be dead, not have life, have no physical or mental function). We all had no life before we were born. That is our very best evidence as to what happens when your life ends. Your life was not there before, you were born and had life, and now you again no longer have life once you die.
> 
> There's no reason to think life after death will be any different than life before you were alive - nothingness, a black void, billions of years pass and you're not even aware of it. You didn't exist/had no life, you were born and existed/had life, then you died/no longer had life again.


So, as assumed, you're a materialist. There's a wealth of evidence to suggest that the death of the physical body does not = nothingness and eternal blackness. Are you aware that there are actually animals with a sixth sense?

Plenty of research has been conducted in the near death experience phenomena which reveals some pretty damning evidence to suggest that something else lives on after the physical body dies. Something much greater than this reality, in fact.

I.e. numerous cases of people being reported as biologically dead (no brain activity, no pulse) yet recall themselves floating above their body and are able to recall the exact conversations of the doctors and nurses in the medical room.

Blind people having a near death experience (being pronounced biologically dead) and being able to see with clarity after floating above their own body, with no physical eyes or physical body to see with.

There's a wealth of research and investigation into this, I recommend looking it up.

And it does beg the question, if there is life after this material life, why? Who or what is responsible for it?


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

M.C said:


> The thread is about a pastor and God and religion. Of course we're commenting on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rupert Sheldrake - Morphic Resonance






And the NDE phenomena I mentioned. "Dead" people being able to think and see with great clarity.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> So, as assumed, you're a materialist. There's a wealth of evidence to suggest that the death of the physical body does not = nothingness and eternal blackness. Are you aware that there are actually animals with a sixth sense?
> 
> Plenty of research has been conducted in the near death experience phenomena which reveals some pretty damning evidence to suggest that something else lives on after the physical body dies. Something much greater than this reality, in fact.
> 
> ...


You are misusing "beg the question". It refers to a circular logic, i.e. its begs its own question. An example of begging the question in this context would be "God is responsible for the universe because without God a universe couldn't have been created."


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Sportsman you will always me on my homey list, I was just saying that spiritual experiences don't really fall into the realm of sciences because they are inherently mystical and metaphysical. It's actually not an insult, it's just a descriptor. There's plenty of room for discussion and rumination about things that aren't hard science.


I like you too, bro. It's all good. :hug:

I know it's not science, but science is just a part, yet essential, of our lives ant I live it daily, who doesn't?

I was so skeptic about so many things, yes, I once was a full atheist challenging all religious folks and I stopped once I realized my reasoning was destroying people's faiths and making them vulnerable all because I had a point, so I remained in silent from that point on.

But things happened to me few years ago. Things that would forever change my way of seeing this world and I felt a mix of relief there was something else, but also remorse for telling so many people there was nothing beyond thinking I knew better.

So, even if you, M.C or whoever is out there don't believe right now, there's something else, so don't worry. 

@ClydebankBlitz
There are charlatans, indeed, and that spoils a lot. They are like crook ministers pretending to love Jesus just to find a way into your pocket.

My wife is just a housewife with this gift (like Melinda in Ghost Whisperer, LOL). She never worked with this and here in Brazil, legit spiritual centers and their mediums don't charge a dime. Zero, zero. 
Off course you'll still find crooks offering services on the papers.

Speaking about legit people, there are sensitive ones who can feel freequencies most people can't. That may vary from listening things, to seeing things, having a full communication or writing messages from another layer. 

Sounds crazy, but I have to undergo anually psychological tests and they always say I am normal. :laugh:


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

HexRei said:


> You are misusing "beg the question". It refers to a circular logic, i.e. its begs its own question. An example of begging the question in this context would be "God is responsible for the universe because without God a universe couldn't have been created."


I have no interest in arguing semantics.

Remember folks, not very long ago, mainstream, government-funded "science" also didn't see anything wrong with smoking tobacco - in fact, it was promoted, and lucid dreaming was only "scientifically" verified" around 30 years ago.

That means, all of the people throughout millennia who claimed to be capable of controlling their dreams and doing what they wanted in the dreams, were all incorrect because "science" didn't have the evidence for it. All of those people swearing by their personal accounts of lucid dreams were either liars or delusional, just over 30 years ago.

And, as mentioned previously in the thread, black people were only 3/5's of a human being during slavery. You would have been a laughing stock for claiming that black folk were biologically on the same level as white folk, they were merely only a little above the animal realm.

See, science should constantly be evolving, ideas ever changing, new theories coming to light but, instead, there's nothing but stagnation in the field and anything that challenges the "official" version (like, you know, tobacco being really bad for you) is ridiculed and dismissed.


----------



## sucrets (Jul 8, 2007)

M.C said:


> Again, I'm an atheist, and if someone comes up and tells me that "Atheism is just a religion" or whatever else they feel like saying against or to counter Atheism, or ANYTHING they have to say about atheism, I have zero feeling of being insulted.


Good for you that you are not insulted but...

Atheism *is* a religion. It is a belief system about the nature of the world, it's meaning/purpose or lack thereof and has its own inherent moral "logic" that being, moral relativism. Furthermore, it is intellectually bankrupt, has zero proof and is existentially unlivable. But you can go on living on deluding yourself that somehow what I just said isn't in fact true.

Or you can try to prove atheism intellectually (both based on correspondence theory of truth and coherence theory of truth), explain how it is not a religion/belief system and how any axioms, moral, epistemological or logical can be grounded in its metaphysical system.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> I have no interest in arguing semantics.


It's not semantic, it's a formal logical fallacy and you are invoking it incorrectly. I'm sorry you didn't realize that but don't get mad at me.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

sucrets said:


> Good for you that you are not insulted but...
> 
> Atheism *is* a religion. It is a belief system about the nature of the world, it's meaning/purpose or lack thereof and has its own inherent moral "logic" that being, moral relativism. Furthermore, it is intellectually bankrupt, has zero proof and is existentially unlivable. But you can go on living on deluding yourself that somehow what I just said isn't in fact true.
> 
> Or you can try to prove atheism intellectually (both based on correspondence theory of truth and coherence theory of truth), explain how it is not a religion/belief system and how any axioms, moral, epistemological or logical can be grounded in its metaphysical system.


Do you know what the word intellectually means? You used it repeatedly but you seem a little confused.


----------



## sucrets (Jul 8, 2007)

M.C said:


> *We all know what it's like to not exist *(be dead, not have life, have no physical or mental function). We all had no life before we were born. That is our very best evidence as to what happens when your life ends. Your life was not there before, you were born and had life, and now you again no longer have life once you die.
> 
> There's no reason to think life after death will be any different than life before you were alive - nothingness, a black void, billions of years pass and you're not even aware of it. You didn't exist/had no life, you were born and existed/had life, then you died/no longer had life again.


I'm going to ignore the materialist nonsense and the fallacy of begging the question that your just committed and I will simply address a very basic contradiction and a metaphysical impossibility...

So you claim to know what it's like not to exist? Really? Please tell me how and when you experienced non-existence or how non-existence can ever be experience by anyone.

My God... The stupidity of materialists and atheists is quite profound.


----------



## sucrets (Jul 8, 2007)

HexRei said:


> Do you know what the word intellectually means? You used it repeatedly but you seem a little confused.


It is you that is confused here.

Can you provide proof? Or are you just here to engage in semantic gimmicks like you are doing with the other guy.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

It's funny how tolerance and forgiveness is a major part of most religions yet no-one seems to be able to actually enact it when someone doesn't share the same belief system!

I'm very much an atheist, simply because I can't see how a world with so much injustice/suffering can be overseen by any being that apparently loves us. It's pretty sick if you really think about it.

I do however see the power of 'faith'. People have achieved truely great things though the power of faith. Whether that is faith in a God, themselves or something else. It's why I would never belittle someones religion - if it helps them be the best they can be then more power to that person.

I will put this here though.










I see a lot of people criticise Atheists for not living life to the full or having a somewhat shallower existence for not having a deeper belief in something. I couldn't agree with that more. If you look at the science you realise your existence is a statistical miracle - you existing is rarer than winning the lottery 10 times in a row! That makes me happy everyday.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

sucrets said:


> It is you that is confused here.
> 
> Can you provide proof? Or are you just here to engage in semantic gimmicks like you are doing with the other guy.


Proof of what?

Secular humanism is what it is. I don't need Buddy Christ or Mohammed to tell me that being treated like shit feels bad and that I shouldn't do that to others if I don't like it myself. Don't need myths and tribal explanations for frightening natural phenomenon either. And I don't think you do, do you?


----------



## sucrets (Jul 8, 2007)

HexRei said:


> Proof of what?
> 
> Secular humanism is what it is. I don't need Buddy Christ or Mohammed to tell me that being treated like shit feels bad and that I shouldn't do that to others if I don't like it myself. Don't need myths and tribal explanations for frightening natural phenomenon either. And I don't think you do, do you?


Starwman fallacies are not going to work with me, buddy.

I don't think you have any idea what I am asking for so I will explain.

Atheism's metaphysical system is what i known as naturalism. I am asking for proof of naturalism. If you don't know how to do it, I will tell you. 

1. Prove that nature is all there is.
2. Prove that nature is a closed system.
3. Provide an epistemological system based on the reality of naturalism that allows you to utilize things such as logic, truth, and grounds empirics as so to justify whatever proof you have provided for 1 + 2.

To save us all the time, I will give you the answer. No atheist has ever provided proof/justification to the above 3 questions (and no one will ever will), making atheism/naturalism intellectually bankrupt. Even worse, it is impossible to provide a proof/justification. Simply put, atheism is just blind faith.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

sucrets said:


> I'm going to ignore the materialist nonsense and the fallacy of begging the question that your just committed and I will simply address a very basic contradiction and a metaphysical impossibility...
> 
> So you claim to know what it's like not to exist? Really? Please tell me how and when you experienced non-existence or how non-existence can ever be experience by anyone.
> 
> My God... The stupidity of materialists and atheists is quite profound.


Are you saying we existed before we were alive? None of us were alive (therefore didn't exist), and we all experienced/went through that process - every single one of us. The experience was this - a blackless void that was deeper than sleep, nothingness, and then I was a baby. 14 billion years passed and all of space time in what was the blink of an eye. Quite peaceful if I say so myself, and I do hope that is what happens when I die, a great life full of amazing things, and then when I am old (hopefully when I'm old) and tired and lived a full life, I get an eternal peaceful sleep where a billion years can pass in a second and I'm blissfully unaware. 



sucrets said:


> Good for you that you are not insulted but...
> 
> Atheism *is* a religion. It is a belief system about the nature of the world, it's meaning/purpose or lack thereof and has its own inherent moral "logic" that being, moral relativism. Furthermore, it is intellectually bankrupt, has zero proof and is existentially unlivable. But you can go on living on deluding yourself that somehow what I just said isn't in fact true.
> 
> Or you can try to prove atheism intellectually (both based on correspondence theory of truth and coherence theory of truth), explain how it is not a religion/belief system and how any axioms, moral, epistemological or logical can be grounded in its metaphysical system.


I can prove it by the definition of the word, so.......... yeah.......

Definition of Atheism according to the dictionary - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Definition of Religion according to the dictionary - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

So you see, one of them (atheism) is the lack of belief in a god or gods, and the other (religion) is a belief and worship of a god or gods. One believes in gods, and one doesn't. See how that works? One believes in a god, the other does not believe in a god. One believes, one doesn't, one believes, one doesn't. I can make it shorter - do, don't, do, don't, do, don't. See? Pretty simple stuff, I'm sure any kindergartner could get it so I'm feeling positive about you understanding this extremely basic and easy to understand concept. The fact that you think that Atheism is a "belief system about the nature of the world" is basically the only proof one needs to realize you know absolutely nothing about the subject. You don't even know the basic definitions of the words we're using in this discussion or what they mean.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

I dunno about you sucrets but ive never met and atheist that pretended to know the workings of the universe, just those that simply dont believe its the creation of some omnipotent being.

Just because i dont believe in a god doesnt mean i have a scientific understanding of everything that encompasses our universe and worship nature.

I have no idea what this life we have is. Im absolutely fine with that! I have no need to come up with a story for why im here just happy to marvel at the fact i am here! 
That may seem intellectually bankrupt to you but to me its just logical.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Wow some people are so serious and sassy!

In short, Conor said some silly shit, Church got mad, Life goes on


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Jesus never held a belt in the UFC, let's all not forget that. Conor would whoop 'dat ass. Jesus would call back to his dad, saying "we're rich daddy, pull out the red panties!" if he ever got to fight the almighty Irishman.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

@Sportsman 2.0 I'm not gonna talk about it too much cause it's not something I specifically believe in but it's something your bird is really into so I don't want to say something that would insult that you know?

^Hey, turns out I'm not as hypocritical as I thought haha. As long as people's belief systems don't harm another, it's cool. Conor McGregor is obviously insulting people with a specific faith, and yeah, sure, he's a dick for that. I find it bizarre that the church is actually responding but meh, that's how it is. I find it ironic because Conor dresses like a pimp's son is at his first communion half the time :laugh:


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

wicked


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

edlavis88 said:


> I'm very much an atheist, *simply because I can't see how a world with so much injustice/suffering can be overseen by any being that apparently loves us.* It's pretty sick if you really think about it.


There's absolutely no problem being an atheist, as long you don't become as obsessed getting your pov across as much of most religious fanatics.

I understand most people are atheists because they lack more information about what could be out there and I say this because I have lived this. However, since I was very unsettling and thirsty for more information, I went on the field gathering as much of pieces that could be connected to form a reasonable explanation for things like the very doubt you wrote up there.

From everything I've researched, I've found out that the Spiritism would provide the best set of explanations for the reasons we are here and our purpose in this physical dimension and also found out that it is common to former atheists to, at least reckon there's something else after giving a chance to check about those studies, rather than just accepting other religions dogmas.

Actually, atheism is not a religion and Spiritism isn't one either.

If there's one thing I can tell is many tough ups atheists don't mind playing tougher and proudly bragging about being atheists while they are young and healthy, but when confronted with severe ilness, or on the verge of death or seeing someone they love about to expire, they become soft and the fear they have been hiding for so long surfaces and they wish they could believe something if they don't straight start asking for a second chance to the God they lived a life saying they didn't believe.

No worries, though. No matter how many fanatics will say otherwise, God won't punish you for not believing in him or watever is out there.
People should believe what they want and keep being good, most of anything, that's it.

Anyway, for those people who are really curious about all the possibilities, I suggest an alternate path from the regular religion dogmas and a look into the Allan Kardec studies and the Spirit's Book.

http://www.allankardec.com/Allan_Kardec/Le_livre_des_esprits/lesp_us.pdf


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> There's absolutely no problem being an atheist, as long you don't become as obsessed getting your pov across as much of most religious fanatics.
> 
> I understand most people are atheists because they lack more information about what could be out there and I say this because I have lived this. However, since I was very unsettling and thirsty for more information, I went on the field gathering as much of pieces that could be connected to form a reasonable explanation for things like the very doubt you wrote up there.
> 
> ...


Anyone who belittles the beliefs of someone else is a bit of a dick. And you're right there are as many so called atheists that do that as there are religious nuts.

I think agnostic sums me up better than atheist tbh. I'm open to spirituality, i'm open to the possibility that dyeing is not the end and there is more to the world than conventional science tells us.
There is just no religion or set of spiritual guidelines that seem remotely logical to me. I mean i have as much evidence to believe the ancient astronaut theory as I do any of the major religions. 

It does fascinate me though so i'll be sure to give that article a read.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I understand most people are atheists because they lack more information about what could be out there and I say this because I have lived this. However, since I was very unsettling and thirsty for more information, I went on the field gathering as much of pieces that could be connected to form a reasonable explanation for things like the very doubt you wrote up there.


I liked your other part, but disagree with this. The more research you do, the less points towards spiritual beliefs being accurate. Someone doesn't read a book and realize God is real. There is no proof of it. There is literally ZERO amount of research that points to the existence of any sentient being creating the world. 

I get what you mean, but people aren't religious out of logical places. People are religious and/or spiritual because they are open to that idea and more than anything, they want it to be true. It's a source of hope and that hope can turn into faith. If religion was about research and seeking information to confirm beliefs, then why is it so rare that a child from a non-religious family has strong beliefs or why do countries like Brazil or Ireland have high numbers of Catholicism rather than say a different religion? It's not about information and research, it's about culture, faith and hope.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

The Atheism movement is a funny thing to comprehend. I can understand an individual not believing in god, getting on with their lives, and leaving it at that. But some of these dudes take it so seriously. They buy books. Watch documentaries. Go to conferences/seminars. Chat about it online. Fooking weird that a large body of people would put in so much energy into something they don't believe in.

I mean, try and apply it to other movements; I cant think of another example where people might fly in from all over the country to gather in one place to discuss something they all unanimously agree doesn't exist. The people who do this kind of thing are beyond dumb.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> The Atheism movement is a funny thing to comprehend. I can understand an individual not believing in god, getting on with their lives, and leaving it at that. But some of these dudes take it so seriously. They buy books. Watch documentaries. Go to conferences/seminars. Chat about it online. Fooking weird that a large body of people would put in so much energy into something they don't believe in.
> 
> I mean, try and apply it to other movements; I cant think of another example where people might fly in from all over the country to gather in one place to discuss something they all unanimously agree doesn't exist. The people who do this kind of thing are beyond dumb.


Self-reinforcement.

One of my mates is exactly like this. He spends half his time reading books and watching videos on Atheism, the other half of his time he spends trying to find nude pictures of Richard Dawkins.

If he was religious he'd be the kind of guy to blow himself up for God.

I don't get it. Surely one of the main benefits of being atheist is not having spend half your life praying and worshipping a God?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> The Atheism movement is a funny thing to comprehend. I can understand an individual not believing in god, getting on with their lives, and leaving it at that. But some of these dudes take it so seriously. They buy books. Watch documentaries. Go to conferences/seminars. Chat about it online. Fooking weird that a large body of people would put in so much energy into something they don't believe in.
> 
> I mean, try and apply it to other movements; I cant think of another example where people might fly in from all over the country to gather in one place to discuss something they all unanimously agree doesn't exist. The people who do this kind of thing are beyond dumb.


^^^^

This is why I described it as "almost like a religion". There are people who know the bible inside out despite being absolutely sure it's all bullshit. A bizarre group.

I was the same though when I was younger. Being atheist was "cool" and to be honest I grew up without much religion anyways. I was never christened, communed or confirmed or anything. In primary school we used to have a religion segment where we would go over the absolute basics of the Jesus story. We would also sign hymns on a Wednesday morning as part of the whole school but they would never mention Jesus or anything other than "God" as it was a non-denominational school. The most religious we got ever was the nativity play or Christmas choir. I am still insulted about the nativity play. They cast me as Barry Norman, a reference I still don't get, as the key-speaker for an entire night of some form of play, of which I don't remember. I'm getting laughs at jokes I don't even get, killing it though.......I sign up for the nativity play. Here you go Clyde, you be "Market owner #3". Are you kidding me? These people remember me from my memorable performance as Barry Norman and you're casting me as an extra? I'm at the absolute least worthy of being Joseph, if not Jesus.

We weirdly covered Islam in a lot of depth in the school too. We went to a Mosque, went over the hand drawing marriage stuff, the prayer mats, Mecca etc. I actually though Mecca Bingo had something to do with Islam for a while after that. I also built a Lego Mosque of my own accord.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^^^^
> 
> *This is why I described it as "almost like a religion". There are people who know the bible inside out despite being absolutely sure it's all bullshit. A bizarre group.*
> 
> .


That is very odd! They're like the guys who would rather spend time watching their rival sports team lose than they do their own team win!

I think the bottom line is god or no god just try not to be a c*nt and you're moving in the right direction.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Spite said:


> Self-reinforcement.


Indeed. Kind of implies that they don't really believe it 100%.

I can understand if it was possible to actually prove god doesn't exist and these people are on a mission to discover that truth. But proving god doesn't exist is just as impossible as proving he/she/it does. So they put in all that effort and money into something that cant really go anywhere. Atheism hasn't made any leaps and bounds. Theres no progress. Its the same info over and over again. As far as the atheism industry goes, its money for old rope. And these people lap it up. Like I said... beyond dumb.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

edlavis88 said:


> That is very odd! They're like the guys who would rather spend time watching their rival sports team lose than they do their own team win!
> 
> I think the bottom line is god or no god just try not to be a c*nt and you're moving in the right direction.


Yep. People say things like "religion has caused more deaths than ____". It was just the excuse. Those lads were all a bunch of c*nts so they acted like religion was a thing. It's the same with race. Hell, Rangers Vs Celtic is another thing. If people are knobs, they don't need too much as an excuse to have a war or fight or whatever.

To be fair though, your first comment might not be best at home on an MMA site. I'd say half of the people here are more interested in seeing Conor McGregor get his jaw broke than they are watching any of their favourite fighters in action :laugh:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> Indeed. Kind of implies that they don't really believe it 100%.
> 
> I can understand if it was possible to actually prove god doesn't exist and these people are on a mission to discover that truth. But proving god doesn't exist is just as impossible as proving he/she/it does. So they put in all that effort and money into something that cant really go anywhere. Atheism hasn't made any leaps and bounds. Theres no progress. Its the same info over and over again. As far as the atheism industry goes, its money for old rope. And these people lap it up. Like I said... beyond dumb.


On the plus side, it does award them such amazing insight like saying the phrases "Spaghetti monster", "Bearded sky zombie" and "Religious people are ignorant".


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Spite said:


> Well, wishing death on someone just because you have an issue with what he said.
> 
> And people say Islam is nuts.


I didn't read the whole thread, so if someone may have already pointed this out. 

I think the difference here is at least this pastor is willing to let God handle it, in Islam they tend to try and take care of it themselves. 

Maybe Conor should start saying he could kick Mohammad's Ass because is the greatest prophet ever and see how the Ayatollahs handle it..


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I liked your other part, but disagree with this. The more research you do, the less points towards spiritual beliefs being accurate. Someone doesn't read a book and realize God is real. There is no proof of it. There is literally ZERO amount of research that points to the existence of any sentient being creating the world.
> 
> I get what you mean, but people aren't religious out of logical places. People are religious and/or spiritual because they are open to that idea and more than anything, they want it to be true. It's a source of hope and that hope can turn into faith. If religion was about research and seeking information to confirm beliefs, then why is it so rare that a child from a non-religious family has strong beliefs or why do countries like Brazil or Ireland have high numbers of Catholicism rather than say a different religion? It's not about information and research, it's about culture, faith and hope.


You don't enter a Flight Simulator before reading lots of books and you don't become a pilot before entering a Flight Simulator. So, as I said before, it's not purely reading books that will make you spiritualized.

First of all, you have to be intested and open minded to learn new things, then, you read books about what people have experimented, then, you check for yourself. The experiences some here said can't be duplicated are actually routine and in no way negate anything we've learned about how to live in our physical world. It just adds up.

Again, one who is not interested, has already shut himself for new horizons. You know, the world was flat once, wasn't it?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Soojooko said:


> The Atheism movement is a funny thing to comprehend. I can understand an individual not believing in god, getting on with their lives, and leaving it at that. But some of these dudes take it so seriously. They buy books. Watch documentaries. Go to conferences/seminars. Chat about it online. Fooking weird that a large body of people would put in so much energy into something they don't believe in.
> 
> I mean, try and apply it to other movements; I cant think of another example where people might fly in from all over the country to gather in one place to discuss something they all unanimously agree doesn't exist. The people who do this kind of thing are beyond dumb.


Or it's because people use religion to pass laws and oppress people? Maybe it's because many Christians want to put intelligent design into science classes where it doesn't belong? Maybe because religion is infringing on the separation of church and state and the government promotes a specific religion in a country that is supposed to be neutral?

Maybe it's because the governor of Texas, a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHO WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, did this:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/07/rick-perrys-call-to-prayer



> "Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government, and as a nation we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us, and for that we cry out for your forgiveness" - Rick Perry


You realize people did that thousands of years ago to fix their problems, right? You realize that "praying for rain" is how people fixed issues back when we didn't know where the sun went at night, right? You realize that someone like this should be so far away from government office that you couldn't see him with the worlds most powerful telescope, right?

Maybe it's because of things like the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), a law that that is put into place that has the effect of protecting someone who runs a business to deny service to gay people? It's a law, that is in multiple states in America, that helps protect business owners who wish to refuse service to homosexuals. It is "legal discrimination". Maybe THAT'S part of the reason people hate religion and what the shit gone entirely, and that people aren't just "saying okay I don't believe, I'll move on with my life". Maybe THAT'S why people attack religion?

Maybe people are doing a big "movement" because religion is toxic and should be abolished from our government and schools, and people are standing up to make that happen, and with that comes people talking about life without religion and discussion religion and non-religion, and that includes atheism. 

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

"Those who believe this Pastor Donnie Romero would immediatelly accept the generous amount of U$ 50.000 as under the table "donation to his church" from Mr. McGregor himself for raising his stocks even more with this speech, please *raise your hands*".


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Soojooko said:


> Indeed. Kind of implies that they don't really believe it 100%.
> 
> I can understand if it was possible to actually prove god doesn't exist and these people are on a mission to discover that truth. But proving god doesn't exist is just as impossible as proving he/she/it does. So they put in all that effort and money into something that cant really go anywhere. Atheism hasn't made any leaps and bounds. Theres no progress. Its the same info over and over again. As far as the atheism industry goes, its money for old rope. And these people lap it up. Like I said... beyond dumb.


I disagree. There are a number of tests I'd accept for proof of the existence of god- miracles and so forth. There isn't really any way to disprove it though.

Sadly, no one seems to be able to do any of these miracles or other biblical works that I would consider proof for a Christian god.

Also, I'm a little confused by what you mean regarding atheism here. Progress? It's just a loose term for a bunch of people who have concluded there's insufficient evidence for deities. There's not really anywhere to go with it. Are you concerned that non-leprechaun believers aren't making enough progress with their non-leprechaun beliefs?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

edlavis88 said:


> I'm very much an atheist, simply because I can't see how a world with so much injustice/suffering can be overseen by any being that apparently loves us. It's pretty sick if you really think about it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy_and_the_Bible



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> No worries, though. No matter how many fanatics will say otherwise, God won't punish you for not believing in him or watever is out there.


So you say the Bible, Qur'an and Torah are all wrong¿



ClydebankBlitz said:


> This is why I described it as "almost like a religion". There are people who know the bible inside out despite being absolutely sure it's all bullshit. A bizarre group.


There are people who have thouroughly read Hitler's "Mein Kampf", they don't necessarily need to condone it. They might just want to understand it and how it influenced people to make path for the Third Reich.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^^^^
> 
> This is why I described it as "almost like a religion". There are people who know the bible inside out despite being absolutely sure it's all bullshit. A bizarre group.


So your position is that ignorance is somehow power? If you want to be able to talk about something intelligently you learn about it.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> So your position is that ignorance is somehow power? If you want to be able to talk about something intelligently you learn about it.


Are you under the impression that the bible holds a key to prove God? It's a very simple belief system. You have faith or you don't. If you don't, the bible has no meaning to you so reading it inside and out to pick inconsistencies for the purpose of bringing them up to the faithful is just being a knob.



Voiceless said:


> There are people who have thouroughly read Hitler's "Mein Kampf", they don't necessarily need to condone it. They might just want to understand it and how it influenced people to make path for the Third Reich.


If they thought Hitler didn't exist then it'd be a pretty pointless read. "Hey, I just read an autobiography of a non existent being, it was great".



Sportsman said:


> You don't enter a Flight Simulator before reading lots of books and you don't become a pilot before entering a Flight Simulator. So, as I said before, it's not purely reading books that will make you spiritualized.
> 
> First of all, you have to be intested and open minded to learn new things, then, you read books about what people have experimented, then, you check for yourself. The experiences some here said can't be duplicated are actually routine and in no way negate anything we've learned about how to live in our physical world. It just adds up.
> 
> Again, one who is not interested, has already shut himself for new horizons. You know, the world was flat once, wasn't it?


You believe in the Christian god, correct? You use your experiences and the experiences of others to back up your beliefs right? So if I tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I'm spoke at length to Allah and he tells me Islam is real...what do you think? You don't believe me right? Yet I'm using my experiences and the experiences of others to back it up.

I love religion. It's a fascinating subject. The reason I replied to you is that you essentially said M.C. should educate himself on the subject and he will see the truth. There is absolutely NO research that points to proving the existence of any deity. NOTHING. Religion is a BELIEF system for a reason. It's FAITH. It's not fact or fiction. This isn't like the world being flat because unless you're BOB, we know the earth isn't flat. We have physical evidence which irrefutably proves that the earth is not flat. There is absolutely not a single iota of evidence to support either the existence or non-existence of any deity that anyone worships. In fact, going a step further, there isn't a single iota of evidence to support ANY spiritual being or presence. 

So you can't really tell someone to educate themselves because there is no level where that education amounts to conclusion. I'm really into religion. I've read a good bit of the bible and have always planned on learning more about the other major ones and reading their sacred texts etc. For me though, this is more about the understanding of people and how one might be able to take content and use it in their own way. Hell, these books have inspired people to do some amazing things so why not me? But I know there is no possible way that I open a book and find proof within it's contents. These are texts written by man. I don't trust man's word as gospel.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> If they thought Hitler didn't exist then it'd be a pretty pointless read. "Hey, I just read an autobiography of a non existent being, it was great".


It's not a pointless read. People don't actually believe Middle Earth exists, yet Lord of the Rings is one of the bestselling books ever. And it's also not necessarily about entertainment value, but as I said, it can be about trying to find out why it has so much influence on a lot of people.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^^^^
> 
> This is why I described it as "almost like a religion". There are people who know the bible inside out despite being absolutely sure it's all bullshit. A bizarre group.


There's a popular saying - if you want to turn a Christian into an Atheist, make them read their bible. 

You will find that many Christians barely know what's in the bible, they just claim to be Christian, say they believe in God then have no knowledge about what their religion actually teaches and spews in their holy book(s). I can't count how many times I've had a religious discussion like this, threw out a passage from the bible to prove a point, and the person goes "nuh uh, the bible doesn't say that!!!", when it very clearly does and it's very clear they've never actually read it. Religious writing/books are full of contradictions, silly fairy tales, evil morals, murder, killing, the wishful death of others, the worship of the end of the world, the glorification of mass torture, discrimination, bigotry, sexism, among other evil, horrific, cult-like things.

Some atheists read the bible out of pure interest in why anybody would believe in a magic man in the sky, maybe there's something in there that can change their mind or make them think in a different way? Maybe they read it to educate themselves more on the subject as a whole? Knowledge is always a good thing.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> It's not a pointless read. People don't actually believe Middle Earth exists, yet Lord of the Rings is one of the bestselling books ever. And it's also not necessarily about entertainment value, but as I said, it can be about trying to find out why it has so much influence on a lot of people.


Because it's fictional. If people were pretending someone existed and wrote a book of their life, no one would care. God isn't a simple case of mythology. 

If you flat out don't believe in God or the Christian faith, what possible use do you have for the bible?


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Because it's fictional. If people were pretending someone existed and wrote a book of their life, no one would care. God isn't a simple case of mythology.
> 
> If you flat out don't believe in God or the Christian faith, what possible use do you have for the bible?


Entertainment.. curiosity.. among other things.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Because it's fictional. If people were pretending someone existed and wrote a book of their life, no one would care. God isn't a simple case of mythology.
> 
> If you flat out don't believe in God or the Christian faith, what possible use do you have for the bible?


I flat out don't believe in Greek Mythology, yet I studied that subject a lot during my time in school and still do sometimes. Christianity is no different than Greek Mythology, it's a myth, it's a religious text depicting magic men and and fairly tale stories and amusing (cute, really, same as other mythologies) "answers" to the world and universe. 

Reading "modern day" religious text is honestly no different than Greek Mythology or anything else. It can be interesting to read up on how people from thousands of years ago before we were educated and knowledgeable about the world and universe answered basic questions our children know today with cute myths and stories.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

M.C said:


> There's a popular saying - if you want to turn a Christian into an Atheist, make them read their bible.
> 
> You will find that many Christians barely know what's in the bible, they just claim to be Christian, say they believe in God then have no knowledge about what their religion actually teaches and spews in their holy book(s). I can't count how many times I've had a religious discussion like this, threw out a passage from the bible to prove a point, and the person goes "nuh uh, the bible doesn't say that!!!", when it very clearly does and it's very clear they've never actually read it. Religious writing/books are full of contradictions, silly fairy tales, evil morals, murder, killing, the wishful death of others, the worship of the end of the world, the glorification of mass torture, discrimination, bigotry, sexism, among other evil, horrific, cult-like things.
> 
> Some atheists read the bible out of pure interest in why anybody would believe in a magic man in the sky, maybe there's something in there that can change their mind or make them think in a different way? Maybe they read it to educate themselves more on the subject as a whole? Knowledge is always a good thing.


Out of pure interest? Look at the paragraph above, they read the bible just so they can do exactly what you do, point out the contradictions to people. I did it to, and I reckon that's being a knob.

Who has the right to challenge someone else's faith for them? If someone wants to believe in God without reading the bible, that's their prerogative. 

The simple fact that people refer to themselves as atheist generally means they're the kind of dick who takes pride in being one. If "atheists" read the bible, I'd say one in a million are doing so to broaden their horizons and expand their mind. That other nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine people are doing it because they are foaming at the mouth for the opportunity to quote love and tolerance and anti-gays as a contradiction, or ask someone of faith why they don't burn chairs after girls on periods sit on them.

If someone wants to have their faith, that's fine. As long as they don't use it to create negativity and don't try and bring me into it, then they are perfectly fine and I have no desire to tell them they are right or wrong.



M.C said:


> I flat out don't believe in Greek Mythology, yet I studied that subject a lot during my time in school and still do sometimes. Christianity is no different than Greek Mythology, it's a myth, it's a religious text depicting magic men and and fairly tale stories and amusing (cute, really, same as other mythologies) "answers" to the world and universe.
> 
> Reading "modern day" religious text is honestly no different than Greek Mythology or anything else. It can be interesting.


Here you go. "It's a myth". Alright, you believe that. But in telling people they are wrong and you are right, you are doing EXACTLY what you condemn the religious for doing. You are trying to force your beliefs on them and for what? What do you gain out of telling someone with faith that their belief system is a myth? What personal growth or benefit do you gain from that?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Out of pure interest? Look at the paragraph above, they read the bible just so they can do exactly what you do, point out the contradictions to people. I did it to, and I reckon that's being a knob.
> 
> Who has the right to challenge someone else's faith for them? If someone wants to believe in God without reading the bible, that's their prerogative.
> 
> ...


Nice - wrong - assumption. I read it because I was interested in reading it the same was I was interested in studying Greek Mythology. I didn't "study" Christianity, though, because it's a much more boring mythology to dive into. 

I don't view Christianity any different than any other religion, they are all equally silly, and I read all of them for the same reason. The fact that if I'm having a debate with a religious person and they don't even know what's in their own bible is just part of the issue of religious people not reading their own texts.

As for Christianity (I'm using Christianity but this goes for all modern religions, just to be clear) being a myth, it is. I'm not telling people they are wrong, I'm saying modern religions are myths just like past religions. They can believe in whatever they want and think whatever they want. I'm not going to sit here and pretend Christianity or any modern religion is held up on some special chair that you can't touch. They are full of silly stories and magic and everything else I mentioned already, I don't hold my tongue to protect people's lil feewings. I tell it how I see it and if you have an issue, deal with it. I don't pretend that your religion is special, it's not on any level whatsoever special or different from Greek Mythology or any religious belief that people have had over the course of human history. We used to worship mountains and the sun, that's equally silly (although at least mountains and the sun are real).


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> So you say the Bible, Qur'an and Torah are all wrong¿


Why not? I am a free thinker. I don't follow blindly what others have written, mistranslated or what doesn't work for me. All of those books bring priceless teachings that I agree with, but also countless nonsenses.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

@M.C. you should present your findings to the world religions. They would love to see your proof that they are mythological. Would shake up the world for sure.

This is where we differ. I'm not going to tell someone their faith is fake just because that's what I believe. You BELIEVE it is mythological, as you have not proof otherwise. Maybe that belief is a HELLLLLLLLLLL of a lot easier to have than that or a religious person, as proving something right is required much more than proving something wrong, but without conclusive evidence to support your claim, your views are nothing more than beliefs and in underlining that it's not your belief in that in actuality your word is the truth, you are no better than religious nuts pushing their views upon people.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Why not? I am a free thinker. I don't follow blindly what others have written, mistranslated or what doesn't work for me. All of those books bring priceless teachings that I agree with, but also countless nonsenses.


And you believe there are not countless nonsenses in the Christian bible?

I'm only asking this because of your stance that one must educate themselves to find the truth in Christianity. Everything you can use to support Christianity is easily replicated by any other religion.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> @M.C. you should present your findings to the world religions. They would love to see your proof that they are mythological. Would shake up the world for sure.
> 
> This is where we differ. I'm not going to tell someone their faith is fake just because that's what I believe. You BELIEVE it is mythological, as you have not proof otherwise. Maybe that belief is a HELLLLLLLLLLL of a lot easier to have than that or a religious person, as proving something right is required much more than proving something wrong, but without conclusive evidence to support your claim, your views are nothing more than beliefs and in underlining that it's not your belief in that in actuality your word is the truth, you are no better than religious nuts pushing their views upon people.


Except I'm not pushing my views on anybody, you seriously need to read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth. I'm telling you what I think and why I read the bible, I'm not telling other people they can't or that they are wrong or whatever. Saying what I think doesn't = telling people they are wrong. Learn the difference, it will be helpful to you in the future. 

Read my post, read it again, read it again, then read it again, and then maybe you will actually realize what I'm saying instead of making things up that I didn't say.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Are you under the impression that the bible holds a key to prove God? It's a very simple belief system. You have faith or you don't. If you don't, the bible has no meaning to you so reading it inside and out to pick inconsistencies for the purpose of bringing them up to the faithful is just being a knob.


Um, I wouldn't know anything about the belief system if I hadn't learned about it. I will always take an informed decision over an uninformed one. There's nothing super awesome about saying "I don't know shit about this topic, but I've already formed an opinion and I'm sticking with it". You are literally criticizing people for educating themselves about something before making a decision.



ClydebankBlitz said:


> And you believe there are not countless nonsenses in the Christian bible?
> 
> I'm only asking this because of your stance that one must educate themselves to find the truth in Christianity. Everything you can use to support Christianity is easily replicated by any other religion.


So wait. If you're so against reading about a religion, how do you know what the content of the bible is, nonsense or not? Are you just regurgitating a youtube video you watched one time?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

M.C said:


> Except I'm not pushing my views on anybody, you seriously need to read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth. I'm telling you what I think and why I read the bible, I'm not telling other people they can't or that they are wrong or whatever. Saying what I think doesn't = telling people they are wrong. Learn the difference, it will be helpful to you in the future.
> 
> Read my post, read it again, read it again, then read it again, and then maybe you will actually realize what I'm saying instead of making things up that I didn't say.


"It is a myth". That's your words. You are not saying "I believe it's a myth", "I think it's a myth" or anything of this sort. You are telling people it IS a myth, that it IS fictional. You are telling people that it's not true and that all belief in religion is "silly".

These things ARE pushing your beliefs onto people. 



HexRei said:


> Um, I wouldn't know anything about the belief system if I hadn't learned about it. I will always take an informed decision over an uninformed one. There's nothing super awesome about saying "I don't know shit about this topic, but I've already formed an opinion and I'm sticking with it". You are literally criticizing people for educating themselves about something before making a decision.
> 
> So wait. If you're so against reading about a religion, how do you know what the content of the bible is, nonsense or not? Are you just regurgitating a youtube video you watched one time?


Reading the bible doesn't create faith. Reading any religious text doesn't create faith. If someone has already formed the conclusion that they don't believe in a faith, they are going to do the research in some sort of "disproving" way. MC straight up admitted to it in his conversations with religious people who haven't read the bible.

I'm not so against reading about a religion, I'm against people reading the bible to pick and choose quotes as an attempt to use the against people and their faith. That's what most "atheists" who have read the bible do. They aren't trying to enlighten themselves, they are trying to pick lines that they thing will go down well in arguments that they instigate. I'd say the search history of most of these people contains such unbiased phrases like "Ways to prove the bible is wrong" and "How to convince a religious person they are incorrect".

If someone is reading the bible out of general interest, be it because it's a fascinating subject to them or they want to try and understand a little bit more about some stories they might have heard or the overall teaching that a religion provides, go right ahead. No problem at all. But if you're reading it so you can get yourself plenty of little quips to fire at someone who holds a certain faith, then just save yourself the time and don't bother. All you are doing is annoying someone by trying to convert them to your way of thinking. If a person wishes to hold a certain belief, it's no one's role to convince them otherwise.

You act as though I've even once posted my beliefs or experience with these religions. I haven't even said whether I believe in God or not. I just hate to see both sides be so hypocritical to tell the other they are wrong. Rationality and logic dictates that as neither have conclusive proof to their argument, then neither hold anything more than their beliefs and their faith, a complete stalemate.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> "It is a myth". That's your words. You are not saying "I believe it's a myth", "I think it's a myth" or anything of this sort. You are telling people it IS a myth, that it IS fictional. You are telling people that it's not true and that all belief in religion is "silly".
> 
> These things ARE pushing your beliefs onto people.


 No. They absolutely are not. We are in a goddamn discussion forum discussing stuff, we are all here to talk about this voluntarily, he's not going to churches and passing out pamphlets or bombing synagogues.



> Reading the bible doesn't create faith. Reading any religious text doesn't create faith. If someone has already formed the conclusion that they don't believe in a faith, they are going to do the research in some sort of "disproving" way. MC straight up admitted to it in his conversations with religious people who haven't read the bible.
> 
> I'm not so against reading about a religion, I'm against people reading the bible to pick and choose quotes as an attempt to use the against people and their faith. That's what most "atheists" who have read the bible do. They aren't trying to enlighten themselves, they are trying to pick lines that they thing will go down well in arguments that they instigate. I'd say the search history of most of these people contains such unbiased phrases like "Ways to prove the bible is wrong" and "How to convince a religious person they are incorrect".
> 
> If someone is reading the bible out of general interest, be it because it's a fascinating subject to them or they want to try and understand a little bit more about some stories they might have heard or the overall teaching that a religion provides, go right ahead. No problem at all. But if you're reading it so you can get yourself plenty of little quips to fire at someone who holds a certain faith, then just save yourself the time and don't bother. All you are doing is annoying someone by trying to convert them to your way of thinking. If a person wishes to hold a certain belief, it's no one's role to convince them otherwise.


No, reading it is what prevented me from believing it. Believing it even though it is hilariously obviously a work of largely fiction would be faith. Nah, I'll take the sane view. I know it pisses you off that some people try to understand things. I'm not going to stop.

Oh, and once again, aint nobody here that isn't wanting to participate in the discussion. Every single one of them is actually here because they want to talk about this stuff, they literally bought a computer, obtained internet access, found this site, clicked on this thread, and decided to jump in so stop with the boohoo victim crap. 


> You act as though I've even once posted my beliefs or experience with these religions. I haven't even said whether I believe in God or not. I just hate to see both sides be so hypocritical to tell the other they are wrong. Rationality and logic dictates that as neither have conclusive proof to their argument, then neither hold anything more than their beliefs and their faith, a complete stalemate.


A) I seriously don't give one shit about whether you believe in god or not, because it is irrelevant to this discussion.

B) Its a stalemate in the same way that its a stalemate that you can't prove leprechauns are real. Derp. Or unicorns, or fairies, or elves, or goblins, literally anyone can make anything up and just because you can't prove its not there, its stalemate? How do you even function from day to day if you think dragons are probably as real as everything else? Shouldn't you be cowering in fear over Grey aliens and Reptilians and shit? Do you really not use any sort of discernment to figure out what's real and what's not?


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

I think when youre a moderate anything its hard.

I consider myself a moderate atheist/agnostic. I dont really talk about my view of existence unless its being discussed, like in this thread.
Many Christians, muslims, sikhs, buddhists etc are the same.

I think to pronounce you 100% have the answers to why we are here is extremely arrogant. 

Sure have your beliefs but respect those of others, its not that hard. 

The biggest problems with religion and atheism is the fact that the need to convert everyone to their way of thinking seems to be a central theme.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

edlavis88 said:


> I think when youre a moderate anything its hard.
> 
> I consider myself a moderate atheist/agnostic. I dont really talk about my view of existence unless its being discussed, like in this thread.
> Many Christians, muslims, sikhs, buddhists etc are the same.
> ...


Erm, actually it's religions that tend to make claims 100% about "why we are here". That is a philosophical question that is not addressed in atheism specifically. Once again, atheism is simply concluding that there isn't sufficient evidence for any given deity to believe. It has nothing to do with "why we are here".


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Erm, actually it's religions that tend to make claims 100% about "why we are here". That is a philosophical question that is not addressed in atheism specifically. Once again, atheism is simply concluding that there isn't sufficient evidence for any given deity to believe. It has nothing to do with "why we are here".


To an extent yes, but there are many athiests who will point to science as a definitive explanation for everything. Which is fine, to me its the most logical explanation but even science is a theory. Even the most prestigious names in the scientific community dont have all the answers. 

When it comes to existence 'i don't know' is a dirty phrases for many when really its the best phrase to use. Unless youve been here since the beginning of time everything is just a theory, some have more empirical evidence than others but nothing can really be proven.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

edlavis88 said:


> To an extent yes, but there are many athiests who will point to science as a definitive explanation for everything. Which is fine, to me its the most logical explanation but even science is a theory. Even the most prestigious names in the scientific community dont have all the answers.
> 
> When it comes to existence 'i don't know' is a dirty phrases for many when really its the best phrase to use. Unless youve been here since the beginning of time everything is just a theory, some have more empirical evidence than others but nothing can really be proven.


Some atheists do, yes, but that isn't BECAUSE they are atheists. Being an atheist has nothing to do with a world view or morals or how you see things. There are atheists who are super into nature who believe we are all connected, there are atheists who don't think about any of that and just think we're all random and all that stuff is pointless. Where you go after "there's no evidence for any supernatural being therefore I have no belief in one" is all up to the person, on his/her own, without "atheist" attached to it. 



ClydebankBlitz said:


> "It is a myth". That's your words. You are not saying "I believe it's a myth", "I think it's a myth" or anything of this sort. You are telling people it IS a myth, that it IS fictional. You are telling people that it's not true and that all belief in religion is "silly".
> 
> These things ARE pushing your beliefs onto people.
> 
> ...


The dictionary's definition of myth:

1. An idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true
2. Such stories as a group
3. a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4. a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone

Modern religions are a MYTH, by definition. They are a STORY(S) that many people believe but is UNVERIFIABLE, based around something or someone (JESUS, GOD, whatever else), that COME IN GROUPS (bible and other holy books, different stories, different telling of the same story, etc). I call it a myth because IT IS a myth. It shares the same definition as other myths, INCLUDING Greek Mythology and all the other religious myths. If someone doesn't like it, that's just too bad. Reality doesn't go your way sometimes, deal with it. 

I'm not telling people they are "wrong" for believing in it, you can believe in ANYTHING, you can believe you have a magic talking dragon that lives on your shoulder but only you can see them, that's fine, you're not wrong. If I tell you that the concept of having a magical dragon on your shoulder is SILLY, it's because IT IS silly. I'm not telling anyone what to believe or that they are wrong to believe it (unless what they believe is directly damaging me or others). The belief in GOD is not wrong. Religion, however, in its present form, is absolutely wrong and damaging to society.

Also, I didn't read the bible in a disapproving way. I read it cause I was interested in reading it the same way I was interested in reading Greek Mythology. If something comes up in a debate where I quote something out of the bible, and that person doesn't know the quote, that's on THEIR end. I didn't read the bible to trap people in debates, I wouldn't waste my time. You're making stuff up and saying I said things that I didn't, it's getting really annoying, stop doing that.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

edlavis88 said:


> To an extent yes, but there are many athiests who will point to science as a definitive explanation for everything. Which is fine, to me its the most logical explanation but even science is a theory. Even the most prestigious names in the scientific community dont have all the answers.
> 
> When it comes to existence 'i don't know' is a dirty phrases for many when really its the best phrase to use. Unless youve been here since the beginning of time everything is just a theory, some have more empirical evidence than others but nothing can really be proven.


"I don't know" is literally the basic, first concept in science. That's why all the rest is just a giant pile of tests and evidence. And the reason it butts up with religion so frequently; religion is about saying "i know" without really having any evidence. AKA faith.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Okay, I concede. You guys have all the answers and religious people are stupid and deserve to be told so at every possible convinience.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Okay, I concede. You guys have all the answers and religious people are stupid and deserve to be told so at every possible convinience.


Nobody said religious people are stupid. I personally in this thread have only said that modern religions are myths the same way ancient religions are myths, and they are by definition of the word which I provided in my last post, and that I feel religion is detrimental to society in its current form.

Nobody said religious people were stupid because they are into it or believe in it. People believe in a wide margin of things for various reasons. I know a lot of people who are religious and they most certainly aren't stupid people.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

M.C said:


> Nobody said religious people are stupid. I personally in this thread have only said that modern religions are myths the same way ancient religions are myths, and they are by definition of the word which I provided in my last post, and that I feel religion is detrimental to society in its current form.
> 
> Nobody said religious people were stupid because they are into it or believe in it. People believe in a wide margin of things for various reasons. I know a lot of people who are religious and they most certainly aren't stupid people.


You will do someone a good girlfriend someday with justification such as "I didn't call you silly, I just called everything you believe in silly".

Go say "The concept of veganism is retarded" and see if ReptilianSlayer thinks you're being insulting or not. Why do you think this thread even exists? Conor directly insults an entire religion and it's beliefs and as a result, those following it are insulted. For example, if I say something harmless like "I'm not into geeky games set in dungeons and fighting mages and stuff", someone who is into those games might get majorly butthurt because they feel I'm insulting them and the genre with the word 'geeky' and they might post 500 times in defence of what they are into.

Well you insult something someone believes in, passing it off as silly or stupid, you're calling the person who puts so much faith and stock into it silly or stupid.

You haven't posted your "thoughts" in this thread, you have become the first guy to ever "confirm" that all major religious are bullshit by telling everyone that they ARE myths, not that you believe them to be.

I get it. You're not into religion. That's cool and all. I'm not into cheesecake. I don't feel the need to condescendingly put down those that scoff it though.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> You will do someone a good girlfriend someday with justification such as "I didn't call you silly, I just called everything you believe in silly".
> 
> Go say "The concept of veganism is retarded" and see if ReptilianSlayer thinks you're being insulting or not. Why do you think this thread even exists? Conor directly insults an entire religion and it's beliefs and as a result, those following it are insulted. For example, if I say something harmless like "I'm not into geeky games set in dungeons and fighting mages and stuff", someone who is into those games might get majorly butthurt because they feel I'm insulting them and the genre with the word 'geeky' and they might post 500 times in defence of what they are into.
> 
> ...


edit - I had a whole response typed out here for about 30 minutes, but it's getting dumb going back and forth on this so deleted it. I've made all my points, I don't really have much else to say on it. I could rehash what I've already said, things like how religions are a myth because if you look at the definition of the word (just google it, it's really easy) you will find that they fit that exact definition, or I could AGAIN explain how overly sensitive people need to stop trying to find reasons to be insulted, but then you'd reply with the same rehashed stuff as well.

Honestly, the debate is now getting stale and boring and taking up too much of my forum time. :dunno:

I think it's more productive to go back to talking about how Conor would KO Jesus inside a minute, him and RDA both inside a minute. Guy is legit P4P greatest ever.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> And you believe there are not countless nonsenses in the Christian bible?
> 
> I'm only asking this because of *your stance that one must educate themselves to find the truth in Christianity*. Everything you can use to support Christianity is easily replicated by any other religion.


You can only be confusing me with someone else. I have no clue where you read any stance of mine regarding "finding the truth in Christianity". :confused02:
And I just responded to Voiceless there are nonsenses in the Bible, man.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> If you flat out don't believe in God or the Christian faith, what possible use do you have for the bible?


I'm not quite sure what is so hard to understand in _"it can be about trying to find out why it has so much influence on a lot of people."_


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> Nobody said religious people are stupid.


Im saying it now! I will define religious people as those that are totally convinced that there is a god out there and believe all the bullshit being preached and all the bullshit in whichever book it is they subscribe to. 

I don't think people who believe in the possibility that there is a god are stupid at all. But blind faith without question goes hand in hand with idiocy and stupidity.

20 or 30 years ago I would not think the same thing because the world was much more closed and there wasn't freedom of information. People of all religions were just conditioned from birth. But with the age of information we are in, if you are still believing in the nonsense of the bible and koran I believe you are indeed stupid, or at the very least lack intelligence and the ability to think for yourself, so much so you need some people thousands of years ago to do it for you.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Im not a christian anymore but when I was the one thing that bothered me the most was "the word of god" and the fact that you can take a scripture almost any scripture into a room with 100 people in it and come out of the room with 150 interpretation of what it means. 

Dont they see the problem with their entire theory? Im not talking small differences in variation or even the fact that the bible is often miss translated. 

Just the perception of whats in you're bible changes from person to person but people they cant all be right. That's just Christians Im not even considering all the other dribble.

But its the WORD OF GOD MAN ITS THE FLIPPING TRUTH...

I dont even know where to begin with that, People think we should find meaning in things that never existed wile denying themselves true spirituality by not calling the bible what it is, historical fiction. 

I think religion is dangerous and I think Europe is going to pay with its being for excepting so many extremists. 

By the way Religion attracts the worst people, the mentally ill, sociopaths and last but not least probably most scary, psychopaths who dont believe themselves they just use the faith to fuk children, r*pe and murder, concur and gain wealth and power. 

http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/religion-mental-health-angry-god-brain_n_3097025.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-likely-mentally-ill-think-life-meaning.html
http://mic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds#.YIac6hJWi


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

new superfight, God vs McGregor, UFC 666

this has to be the best (or the worst, maybe both at the same time) thread ever.


PS: yea i know I'm not helping here



I'm not saying all religious people are stupid, I'm not saying all atheists are stupid

there are stupid people here and there, lots of em so every ideology can get its fair share of stupid people.

now I ain't religious, I ain't atheist either, one would say I'm spiritually inclined, say in a Joe Rogan kind of way, you know.

I got nothing against religion in and as itself, the most important influence in my life was a devout christian.

We didn't believe the same stories, but we did believe in the same values; love, forgiveness, tolerance, positivity, faith that with a positive, constructive attitude, one can find peace and happiness.

and at almost 40, I'm pretty peaceful and happy

it has alot to do with faith and spirituality, but nothing to do with a bearded guy in the sky.

I don't have an "imaginary friend", who I talk to joining my hands. However I do believe that there is meaning to life, that hatred and fear are NOT the way, because love and forgiveness are.

I don't need tales of a magic baby walking on the lake to believe that, I don't need to kneel down every now and then to be happy, fulfilled and at peace with whatever life throws at me, and it has thrown alot of stuff, not always pretty.

Every hardship is a lesson, and a gateway to more maturity, a better philosophy, and in the end, a happier and more fulfilled life. So in the end, every time I got a tough moment, in the end, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Often, it's a matter of perspective, but with the right perspective, you can see true benefits in life.
I guess one could say "God works in mysterious ways..."
or as my Gandma used to say "God is infinitely good, which means whatever happens in your life, if you have faith, you will benefit for it"
and I guess in her own way, she was teaching me how to have a positive outlook on life.

Again, I don't need an imaginary old bearded guy in the clouds for understanding that, true, first hand life experience and my Gran's perspective taught me that.

And let's say, for one second, that there is a God Almighty living somewhere in the clouds, watching and knowing everything, judging and punishing.

If I believed in his might, then why would I need to somehow "remind him", like "hey god, don't forget to punish this little dude in the UFC, you know, the loud cocky irish guy!"

If I had faith in that imaginary bearded old fart, I'd *know* that sh*t's being taken care of already.

So I really don't get that pastor's rant, why would he need to "pray for God to punish Conor" if he truly believed God was almighty, all knowing and so on?

What arrogance it takes to believe, at the same time, that God would be almighty, all knowing, and the master of the universe, pretty much, and also that he would need *your* "help", pointing out the black sheeps of the herd?

Either you believe, in that case you actually have *faith* that everything is already taken care of, either you don't believe that god is so mighty and all knowing after all, so you feel the need to "lend a hand", help him figure out what to do next.
in that case, you don't really have faith, and you have nothing to do being called a "pastor".

So all in all, it was fun to watch, not surprising. I ain't surprised that people are stupid enough to follow that kind of idiot.

But I don't hate them, really, I pity them, they are just a small part of my world, but they are stuck in their small moronic ideology for most, probably all of, their own lives.

So really, that's too bad for them, with all that fear and hatred, they're missing out on the actual "God's Creation" -if you will- and what's amazing about being alive on planet earth.

But I'm not, I'm having a blast!
so, good for me, I guess

much love MMAF <3


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

I think there is a *HUGE* difference between faith and religion.

I have the utmost respect for people of faith. Whatever you believe if it can strengthen you and improve your life then that is fantastic. There is absolutely nothing idiotic about having faith.

Religion is a different matter - in particular organised religion - I think in a lot of cases organised religion doesn't uphold the core beliefs of the faith they are supposed to be supporting.
This has affected me on a personal level - My parents were both very devout christians and belonged to a church for over 20 years. When their marriage broke down, it got pretty messy and both acted in a bad way and they got divorced - they both turned to the church community for support (after all forgiveness is one of the main themes of christianity) and the community (including people they'd been friends with for over 25 years) completely turned their back on them, they were completely ostracised - and the do good christians judged them. 

I know many people who have had similar experiences with organised religion - and all this happens while many of the higher ups in the Christianity, Islam etc. are complete scumbags. 

The power of faith can't be denied - I don't know the stats but a large amount of sports stars seem to have very strong faith, it obviously gives strength to them which is fantastic - I just find all the politics that come with most religions to be repulsive.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

edlavis88 said:


> I think there is a *HUGE* difference between faith and religion.
> 
> I have the utmost respect for people of faith. Whatever you believe if it can strengthen you and improve your life then that is fantastic. There is absolutely nothing idiotic about having faith.
> 
> ...


I understand where you're coming from, I truly do, and there are numerous examples to support what you claim here.

however, I do know, because I have met some of them, that sometimes, a religious practice (that can be either religion) can instill true faith, if the circumstances are right and the person gets to dig deep under the written word, and find meaning for themselves. Now I will say that even my grandma had her "christian hatred moments", they were however very few and far between, in her older years. She had been through hell tho a war and a very abusive marriage, left by her children, her husband, she didn't have it easy, but she was at peace and as happy as can be.



But I have even more example of religious people who don't have true faith.

even a very close example, my girlfriend, who was very devout when we met, and now she basically had to let go of religion to finally find faith.

in a very weird twist however, she did ask in prayer, to understand what faith truly is.

it sure is a tough one to wrap my head around.

for me, organized religion is closer to what actually would be "satan" (if I believed in such a thing)
but yea, "God works in mysterious ways", I guess :thumb02:



did you know that some organized religions use psychedelic substances in order to get closer to "god"?
I could get behind something like that :confused02::thumbsup:


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

Hello, I am looking for the most current @M.C and @ClydebankBlitz argument. Have I arrived at the correct thread?


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

GOD brought back 20 pages thread to mmaf.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

AmdM said:


> GOD brought back 20 pages thread to mmaf.


It's a miracle!


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

HexRei said:


> It's a miracle!


Indeed, to celebrate I am currently turning wine into urine.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

M.C said:


> Are you saying we existed before we were alive? None of us were alive (therefore didn't exist), and we all experienced/went through that process - every single one of us. The experience was this - a blackless void that was deeper than sleep, nothingness, and then I was a baby. 14 billion years passed and all of space time in what was the blink of an eye. Quite peaceful if I say so myself, and I do hope that is what happens when I die, a great life full of amazing things, and then when I am old (hopefully when I'm old) and tired and lived a full life, I get an eternal peaceful sleep where a billion years can pass in a second and I'm blissfully unaware.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is so dumb, you don't even get the inherent contradiction of your claim of knowing "non-existence". 

You cite your "non existence" before you were a baby as if you REMEMBER it or have ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED it. As some sort of irrefutable fact, when anyone with half a logical or philosophical brain can wrap their head around the inherent contradiction of EXPERIENCING non-existence i.e. if you didn't exist, how can you claim to have experienced it? 

How do you claim to KNOW you didn't exist in some other sentient form / soul before this body? I can understand the agnostic viewpoint that you can't know that we DID exist either, but to claim that you KNOW you didn't exist just because you don't remember it is just vapid.

You don't have any memory of being a baby before 3ish either (no human being does) ... can we then conclude there is no such thing as infancy? Because in your logic, simply because you can't remember something, you didn't exist? Sure there may be OTHERS who can tell you of your existence at the time of infancy, pictures of you at that age etc., but in the case of existence before life if any, you are talking of being outside the box so to speak, so there is no way people from "within the box" of life could prove it one way or another.

You can't logically conclude using any philosophical tools that you have conclusively experienced "non existence", but sucrets is using terminology that is too complicated for most militant atheists who are in reality dumb as doorknobs while pretending to be the intellectual ones. 

Beyond that I'm not going to get involved in the tired atheist debate, I will note with surprise though how Clyde is actually the more intellectual moderate here. It's a geographical divide I see ... the UK / Europe guys while many are also non-theist are mostly agnostic, they still understand the simple logic of not conclusively being able to prove such things. Whereas America has it's brand of militant "knowing" new atheism filled with the derision, bitterness and cult-like aspect noted by Sooj and Clyde. Dawkins may be a brit but it's the liberal American crowd that exalts him most.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

one word: dimethyltriptamine

<3


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> This is so dumb, you don't even get the inherent contradiction of your claim of knowing "non-existence".
> 
> You cite your "non existence" before you were a baby as if you REMEMBER it or have ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED it. As some sort of irrefutable fact, when anyone with half a logical or philosophical brain can wrap their head around the inherent contradiction of EXPERIENCING non-existence i.e. if you didn't exist, how can you claim to have experienced it?
> 
> ...


I didn't claim to "experience" anything, the point of the post was to explain that here was no "experience". There was no experience of "before life" and thus no reason to think that you will experience any "after life". It was blankness, a void, nothingness until the day we were all born. Billions of years passed and we didn't even know it. If there is an "experience" before you were born, there most certainly is no evidence or reason to think that there is, given that nobody on this earth who has been born (all of us) remember it. There IS evidence we were 3, we know that 3 year olds exist. We DON'T know that there is anything before life, and nobody has any memories of before life. You're comparing being 3 (something we absolutely for a fact know happens) to something there's absolutely zero evidence anywhere of having? Uh, why?

You could have saved yourself that post by just asking "what do you mean?".


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

M.C said:


> I didn't claim to "experience" anything, the point of the post was to explain that here was no "experience". There was no experience of "before life" and thus no reason to think that you will experience any "after life". It was blankness, a void, nothingness until the day we were all born. Billions of years passed and we didn't even know it. If there is an "experience" before you were born, there most certainly is no evidence or reason to think that there is, given that nobody on this earth who has been born (all of us) remember it. There IS evidence we were 3, we know that 3 year olds exist. We DON'T know that there is anything before life, and nobody has any memories of before life. You're comparing being 3 (something we absolutely for a fact know happens) to something there's absolutely zero evidence anywhere of having? Uh, why?
> 
> You could have saved yourself that post by just asking "what do you mean?".


There is a world of difference between "there is no current evidence for" and



> None of us were alive *(therefore didn't exist)*, and we all experienced/went through that process - every single one of us.


You fall back on the agnostic defence when you are confronted for your language of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY i.e. militant new atheism.

A few hundred years ago there was no evidence for gravity, and you would be the smug guy saying "unseen forces *don't exist*, every single one of us knows it because we haven't seen them".


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> I didn't claim to "experience" anything, the point of the post was to explain that here was no "experience". There was no experience of "before life" and thus no reason to think that you will experience any "after life". *It was blankness, a void, nothingness until the day we were all born. Billions of years passed and we didn't even know it.* If there is an "experience" before you were born, there most certainly is no evidence or reason to think that there is, given that nobody on this earth who has been born (all of us) remember it. There IS evidence we were 3, we know that 3 year olds exist. We DON'T know that there is anything before life, and *nobody has any memories of before life.* You're comparing being 3 (something we absolutely for a fact know happens) to *something there's absolutely zero evidence anywhere of having?* Uh, why?
> 
> You could have saved yourself that post by just asking "what do you mean?".


Where did you get these ideas you sound so sure about? Specially given it is clear you spent a total of zero minutes researching on this matter.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

We live in a universe that has been established by modern science as being of un-comprehensible scope and size. It stands to reason there is likely absurdly advanced life out there. If we can make the progress we have over a few thousand years, its almost impossible to wrap our heads around a species that might have existed and been evolving technologically for a billion years or more. But all evidence points to such species existing somewhere. I dont see how this can be denied whilst also having the view that the universe is massive and varied.

So, in the above context, I find it astounding that anybody can say with any certainty what exists and what doesn't. I personally dont believe in a single all powerful creator. But im sure as hell not going to insist its an impossibility. Going by the evidence, if anything, it points to beings existing of extraordinary power somewhere in the universe. Beings that may well be capable of destroying and building planets and travelling through time, space and matter. Beings that can see/hear/feel/exist at frequencies we humans are completely unaware of.

In a nutshell, insisting god cant possibly exist is very non-scientific viewpoint. Theres enough grey area to make such an assumption close minded. The questions are clearly there to be asked. There is plenty of room for debate without anybody insisting on anything 100%.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> In a nutshell, insisting god cant possibly exist is very non-scientific viewpoint. Theres enough grey area to make such an assumption close minded. The questions are clearly there to be asked. There is plenty of room for debate without anybody insisting on anything 100%.


Usually people don't say god(s) can't possibly exist, but that there is no evidence that he/they do, so therefore it doesn't make sense to assume there is/are, because you could just assume anything.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> Usually people don't say god(s) can't possibly exist, but that there is no evidence that he/they do, so therefore it doesn't make sense to assume there is/are, because you could just assume anything.


But like I said, our scientific understanding of the universe surely opens the door more than a crack to possibility of beings that would be god-like to us. I would say science has done more for proving gods existence than the church has. Our slow peeling away the depths of the universe to reveal something truly awesome in its scope. So many galaxies. So many planets. So much space. Our puny minds cant fathom the ridiculousness of it. Science is what's given us that understanding today. And this understanding is what has opened my mind to the sheer and likely possibilities that exist out there somewhere.

Ironic that the science world cant see that their theories regards space, time and light do a great deal in proving there is such a thing as existence outside of the realm of physical matter and 3d time and space. Therefore, creating a space where a god like being could feasibly exist. If anything, we in the modern age should be more convinced of it, rather than less, considering what we know today.

EDIT, 
I just wanted to add, that the god created, perpetuated, monetized and exploited by modern organized religion is NOT something I agree with. Pretty disgusted by it to be honest. White men with beards talking shit. A 2000 year old book thats been converted to 100 languages, each with 100 different versions... and yet, "THE WORD OF GOD" is still used as a thing. Them lot can feck off. To be clear.


----------



## Goat Man (Oct 19, 2007)

M.C said:


> I gave a fairly detailed explanation, if you can't understand it then I guess that's that. :dunno:


Yes, you explained it. But sometimes it's better to NOT explain it and let people THINK you're an idiot, rather than try (as YOU did) and erase all doubt.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

Goat Man said:


> Yes, you explained it. But sometimes it's better to NOT explain it and let people THINK you're an idiot, rather than try (as YOU did) and erase all doubt.


It's also better to use your own words and not rip off a Mark Twain quote to make yourself look intelligent.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

ray02: please god, lock this thread. or at least remind me how to unsubscribe. amen.

... and i'm ok with the strikin' goober with the lightning thing. amen.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Soojooko said:


> But like I said, our scientific understanding of the universe surely opens the door more than a crack to possibility of beings that would be god-like to us. I would say science has done more for proving gods existence than the church has. Our slow peeling away the depths of the universe to reveal something truly awesome in its scope. So many galaxies. So many planets. So much space. Our puny minds cant fathom the ridiculousness of it. Science is what's given us that understanding today. And this understanding is what has opened my mind to the sheer and likely possibilities that exist out there somewhere.
> 
> Ironic that the science world cant see that their theories regards space, time and light do a great deal in proving there is such a thing as existence outside of the realm of physical matter and 3d time and space. Therefore, creating a space where a god like being could feasibly exist. If anything, we in the modern age should be more convinced of it, rather than less, considering what we know today.
> 
> ...


There is a ton of difference between god like and an actual supernatural being. The bible is just an attempt to sort out why plagues and natural disasters etc, happened.

Both are attributed to gods wrath which we now know not not to be true. 

I agree they could have seen some aliens and mistook them for supernatural gods but they didn't as far as we can tell. 

You show me some credible peer reviewed evidence for anything supernatural... you cant.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

oldfan said:


> ray02: please god, lock this thread. or at least remind me how to unsubscribe. amen.
> 
> ... and i'm ok with the strikin' goober with the lightning thing. amen.


raise02: Please god, ignore Oldfan, for he knows not the entertainment this thread does deliver.

But the Conor thing, yeah you can just go ahead and do that.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

hadoq said:


> one word: dimethyltriptamine
> 
> <3


When I was 23 I picked up a bunch of DMT and did it daily for 1-2 weeks or so until I ran out, wasn't a big deal because the effects are so short-acting. Anyway, it was interesting and intense but I never saw the god stuff some people say they have experienced, nothing really bizarre anyway. I think Joe totally overrates it. Now sensory deprivation, that stuff got a little weird.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

HexRei said:


> When I was 23 I picked up a bunch of DMT and did it daily for 1-2 weeks or so until I ran out, wasn't a big deal because the effects are so short-acting. Anyway, it was interesting and intense but I never saw the god stuff some people say they have experienced, nothing really bizarre anyway. I think Joe totally overrates it. Now sensory deprivation, that stuff got a little weird.


You used DMT for 2 weeks straight? I'm a fan of LSD but once every couple of months even is usually too much for me. :laugh:

I wouldn't say he overrates it though. Aubrey Marcus said he was flying on the back of a freaking dragon and flying around talking to animals who taught life lessons to him, I don't think seeing a godish being is so out of the realm of possibility.


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

Leed said:


> You used DMT for 2 weeks straight? I'm a fan of LSD but once every couple of months even is usually too much for me. :laugh:
> 
> I wouldn't say he overrates it though. Aubrey Marcus said he was flying on the back of a freaking dragon and flying around talking to animals who taught life lessons to him, I don't think seeing a godish being is so out of the realm of possibility.


I would think it would totally depend on the person. I did shrooms with a few buddies and each of our trips were wildly different.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Leed said:


> You used DMT for 2 weeks straight? I'm a fan of LSD but once every couple of months even is usually too much for me. :laugh:


Yeah, it sounds worse than it is. LSD lasts a *lot* longer than DMT, for example. I was down and normal again in an hour or so each time.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Major rulers of the world control, for political and financial reasons, dictate what will be "officially" researched by scientists to become legit science, as people could not make their own researches and find their own conclusions about so many things. 

Of course, as we spoke here, religions are directly related to a form of controlling people, by making them to fear that they would be punished by God(s) if they wouldn't obey those dogmas.

That being said, it is obvious big countries with their official religions would call any initiative to find out new evidences about our very existence a blasphmy, since new findings could dangerously contradict their sacred books and in consequence, make them to lose control over the people they want to continue to rule.

Isn't it a norm that the science will look for explanation about observed phenomenons only after they occur? Isn't that obvious? You see something you don't understand, you put effort trying to find what is the cause and when you're done, you make it public.

It was only less then two centuries ago, people went ahead to study "paranormal" phenomenons with the intention of clarifying to people and themselves ther origin. That was about the 1850~1900.

It was a new study. Based on scientific observations and tests made by people with scientific background an absolutely ZERO connection with any political party or any other religion. It was a brand new study.

Of course, other stablished traditional religions attacked those studies, including saying those were the work of Satan and made everything they could to hide those findings from the population, including a massive burn of all Spirit's Book they could find.

This is a short summary of those scientific researches of Allan Kardec, among others.



> *Allan Kardec* (Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail)
> 
> Early life
> 
> ...


Scientific research that is probably the only thing capable of bringing all the traditional religions of this world together, inspite all their differences, united to discredit it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

> He became convinced that the mediums:
> 
> - provided accurate information unknown to themselves or others present (e.g. personal information about deceased individuals);
> 
> - accurately portrayed a range of personality characteristics of deceased individuals.


There is literally no medium that has been able to do this reliably in settings with strong controls so far. The most successful ones tend to be cold readers (which is a psychological skill, not supernatural), but even they crumble quickly when they're not in their magic show act setting.

Here's someone that perhaps you should research:



> James Randi (born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, August 7, 1928) is a naturalized American retired stage magician and scientific skeptic[1][2][3] best known for his challenges to paranormal claims and pseudoscience.[4] Randi is the co-founder of Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). He began his career as a magician named The Amazing Randi, and later chose to devote most of his time to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls "woo-woo".[5] Randi retired from practicing magic aged 60, and from the JREF aged 87.
> 
> Although often referred to as a "debunker", Randi dislikes the term's connotations and prefers to describe himself as an "investigator".[6] He has written about the paranormal phenomena, skepticism, and the history of magic. He was a frequent guest on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson and was occasionally featured on the television program Penn & Teller: Bullshit! The JREF sponsors the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, which now makes grants to non-profit groups that encourage critical thinking and a fact-based world view and which, prior to Randi's retirement offered a prize of US$1,000,000 to eligible applicants who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event under test conditions agreed to by both parties.[7]


No one has been able to claim the prize yet. It's been decades. He's done countless tests with self-proclaimed mediums, telekinetics, practically every kind of pseudoscience, plenty of them televized, and every single one has either failed, or been proven an actual fraud.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> There is literally no medium that has been able to do this reliably in settings with strong controls so far. The most successful ones tend to be cold readers (which is a psychological skill, not supernatural), but even they crumble quickly when they're not in their magic show act setting.
> 
> Here's someone that perhaps you should research:
> 
> ...


I don't need to research about charlatans. There was a proper scientific research that I provided to you, but the quickness of your response indicates your scientific curiosity did hit a wall and you don't care giving a proper read on the article and points I've made.

Edit: Beside, I don't need their researches nor I am purely relying on them. Those phenomenons are litteraly routine for me and millions of people and I find nothing unnatural about them anymore.

Edit 2: You, a scientist, gives more credit to a person who is retired entertainer magician making a TV show to collect money and audience over the very subject of destroying myths than to a person with the background of Allan Kardec, also a scientist and skeptic to a point, and the large scale, politically and religiously independent, deep scientific research he did?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I don't need to research about charlatans. There was a proper scientific research that I provided to you, but the quickness of your response indicates your scientific curiosity did hit a wall and you don't care giving a proper read on the article and points I've made.
> 
> Edit: Beside, I don't need their researches nor I am purely relying on them. Those phenomenons are litteraly routine for me and I find nothing unnatural about them anymore.


I read everything you posted. A well educated man who went off his rocker. Yes, educated people can make irrational choices or go genuinely nuts. It's not even that uncommon. However, it's easy to tell when that's happening because they, you know, start believing in people that talk to ghosts and shit. They invent new "sciences" (that are not actually sciences, they aren't going to be teaching ghostwhispering as part of any hard science curriculum at an accredited school, because its preposterous and does not hold up to any credible scientific inquiry) and then some people gobble it up because it makes them feel like their faith-based beliefs are being proven scientifically. But they're not.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You, a scientist, gives more credit to a person who is retired entertainer magician making a TV show to collect money and audience over the very subject of destroying myths than to a person with the background of Allan Kardec, also a scientist and skeptic to a point, and the large scale, politically and religiously independent, deep scientific research he did?


I'm giving credit to a man who has given every person claiming paranormal abilities to come in, prove them in a controlled setting under scrutiny, and claim a big prize. None of the people who have tried have succeeded. It's like all their powers stop working all of a sudden.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> I read everything you posted. A well educated man who went off his rocker. Yes, educated people can make irrational choices or go genuinely nuts. It's not even that uncommon. However, it's easy to tell when that's happening because they, you know, start believing in people that talk to ghosts and shit. They invent new "sciences" (that are not actually sciences, they aren't going to be teaching ghostwhispering as part of any hard science curriculum at an accredited school, because its preposterous and does not hold up to any credible scientific inquiry) and then some people gobble it up because it makes them feel like their faith-based beliefs are being proven scientifically. But they're not.


What makes you think anything must be scientifically proven to exist?
What do you mean with "credible scientific inquiry"? You mean, those inquiries the rulers of the world will fund you to carry on, if, only if, the results won't confront with their plans?

Again, you put an entertainer magician above a scientist. Automatically the scientist is the one who went nuts and the capitalist who made a lot of money with a TV show is the credible one...


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> What makes you think anything must be scientifically proven to exist?
> What do you mean with "credible scientific inquiry"? You mean, those inquiries the rulers of the world will fund you to carry on, if, only if, the results won't confront with their plans?
> 
> Again, you put an entertainer magician above a scientist. Automatically the scientist is the one who went nuts and the capitalist who made a lot of money with a TV show is the credible one...


Why would I believe in something if I can't even find a single shred of proof for it? That's completely crazy. At best I would be neutral toward it, if it didnt affect my life, but in this case, charlatans that pretend to be talking to dead people take advantage of other people with their obviously complete bullshit, and that bothers me. They are taking money from desperate sad people who just miss their loved ones by deceiving them. I mean its not my main goal in life or anything, but yeah, of course I am going to be against that.

Once again, I mentioned Randi because he has exposed a lot of supposedly paranormal people, not because of his credentials. You clearly picked Kardec because he has the same faith-based beliefs as you, called them a science one time (well actually, the article even admits it's really a philosophy, which isn't really science in the same way that say, physics or chemistry is), and has some impressive letters after his name.


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> What makes you think anything must be scientifically proven to exist?
> What do you mean with "credible scientific inquiry"? You mean, those inquiries the rulers of the world will fund you to carry on, if, only if, the results won't confront with their plans?
> 
> Again, you put an entertainer magician above a scientist. Automatically the scientist is the one who went nuts and the capitalist who made a lot of money with a TV show is the credible one...


Even though MC and Hexrei have been going to extreme lengths trying to explain how science or the scientific process works, i think you lack the basic or fundamental understanding/education to fully grasp it. I do not mean this as an offending statement, but I do not know how else to phrase it. If you are genuinely interested in becoming more knowledgeable, go and educate yourself a bit more in the science field, you can only benefit from it. I'm not sure how schools are where you live, but MIT offers some really great online classes/courses for free. They won't apply for a degree since you'd have to be enrolled there, but it's free knowledge and education (isn't that what really matters at the end anyway?).
For all those that do not grasp or understand it, I would very highly recommend taking a physics class or 2 or do some research on how the scientific process, verification or proof, peer reviews and statistics work. 

In any case, you can be offended by it and twist my words around into whatever you think it is that I'm saying, or maybe spend a bit of time to look into it.
Either way, the best to you.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Why would I believe in something if I can't even find a single shred of proof for it? That's completely crazy. At best I would be neutral toward it, if it didnt affect my life, but in this case, charlatans that pretend to be talking to dead people take advantage of other people with their obviously complete bullshit, and that bothers me. They are taking money from desperate sad people who just miss their loved ones by deceiving them. I mean its not my main goal in life or anything, but yeah, of course I am going to be against that.
> 
> Once again, I mentioned Randi because he has exposed a lot of supposedly paranormal people, not because of his credentials. You clearly picked Kardec because he has the same faith-based beliefs as you, called them a science one time (well actually, the article even admits it's really a philosophy, which isn't really science in the same way that say, physics or chemistry is), and has some impressive letters after his name.


Your sentiment toward the charlatans is the same I have. Despicable people. However, you bring a great point. Everywhere money can be made, there come the charlatans, but not only them, official religions are rich and get money from their followers to build up golden temples if not asking them to spare their very lives in terrorist attacks.

However, the Spiritual centers in Brazil charge ZERO and operate out of voluntary work from people who are sensitive. Again, they charge nothing and they are very simple places that help thousand of people every day.

The most notorious medium in Brazil, Chico Xavier, died a poor man. His books and phrases are famous for bringing nothing but the fraternity among men. Some of his sons tried to take advantage of his gifts to make profit out of it, but were severely reprimended and Chico died a simple man he always been.

Mediunity is an ability some people just have and others won't have. It have levels and can be developed on those who already have a certain degree of it. It's like the ability to tune to higher freequencies and reach other dimensions that are only made fantastic by the lack of contact with the subject.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

oordeel said:


> Even though MC and Hexrei have been going to extreme lengths trying to explain how science or the scientific process works, i think you lack the basic or fundamental understanding/education to fully grasp it. I do not mean this as an offending statement, but I do not know how else to phrase it. If you are genuinely interested in becoming more knowledgeable, *go and educate yourself a bit more in the science field*, you can only benefit from it. I'm not sure how schools are where you live, but MIT offers some really great online classes/courses for free. They won't apply for a degree since you'd have to be enrolled there, but it's free knowledge and education (isn't that what really matters at the end anyway?).
> For all those that do not grasp or understand it, I would very highly recommend taking a physics class or 2 or do some research on how the scientific process, verification or proof, peer reviews and statistics work.
> 
> In any case, you can be offended by it and twist my words around into whatever you think it is that I'm saying, or maybe spend a bit of time to look into it.
> Either way, the best to you.


I don't feel offended about your post at all, I rather feel embarrassed for you for writing such garbage. 

Although I don't speak too much about what I do here, because it is irrelevant, before this pearl of yours, I feel compelled to tell you I have myself a University Diploma in Aeronautical Science. Science and physics, among many other things like Physiology, Meteorology, Aerodynamics, Performance, Aeronautical Laws, Psychology, Human Relations, Human Factors, Security and countless other things are just knowledge I have to be up to date for my routine, since I am the Captain of a jet airliner who have travelled the world being directly responsible for the lives of, at least 8 thousand people every month, not mentioning those I am overflying.

You have a nice day, sir.

Oh, this is for you: :shame02:


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

I am just here for the dirty talk.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I don't feel offended about your post at all, I rather feel embarrassed for you for writing such garbage.
> 
> Although I don't speak too much about what I do here, because it is irrelevant, before this pearl of yours, I feel compelled to tell you I have myself a University Diploma in Aeronautical Science. Science and physics, among many other things like Physiology, Meteorology, Aerodynamics, Performance, Aeronautical Laws, Psychology, Human Relations, Human Factors, Security and countless other things are just knowledge I have to be up to date for my routine, since I am the Captain of a jet airliner who have travelled the world being directly responsible for the lives of, at least 8 thousand people every month, not mentioning those I am overflying.
> 
> ...


lol well put, it's always the atheists with dropped out psychology degrees from bumsville community college, working the checkout counter at Macy's, playing the "renowned scientists" online :laugh:


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

I think Jesus just stepped in and changed Yoel Romero's test to negative.... No for gay Jesus is real!!!


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> What makes you think anything must be scientifically proven to exist?
> What do you mean with "credible scientific inquiry"? You mean, those inquiries the rulers of the world will fund you to carry on, if, only if, the results won't confront with their plans?


Come on, you know how scientific inquiry/research works. Of course scientific *inventions* may depend on political agendas ("We have this cool idea of a new energy source" - "Can you make a new weapon out of it?" - "Well, it could be used as a weapon, but also to solve current energy problems." - "Here are the funds, build us a weapon."), BUT scientific *claims* and their experimental set-ups have to be like open source software to be accepted by the international scientific community. The set-ups have to be made public and anyone in the world can look at it, analyse it, look for flaws, reproduce the set-up and see whether it works or not. This is the fundamental difference to any religious or spiritual claims.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

Voiceless said:


> Come on, you know how scientific inquiry/research works. Of course scientific *inventions* may depend on political agendas ("We have this cool idea of a new energy source" - "Can you make a new weapon out of it?" - "Well, it could be used as a weapon, but also to solve current energy problems." - "Here are the funds, build us a weapon."), BUT scientific *claims* and their experimental set-ups have to be like open source software to be accepted by the international scientific community. The set-ups have to be made public and anyone in the world can look at it, analyse it, look for flaws, reproduce the set-up and see whether it works or not. This is the fundamental difference to any religious or spiritual claims.


but don't scientific base their research on theories, ideas? "what ifs"?
constantly challenging what science has previously stated as true?

isn't the ultimate spirituality endeavour science? in that science makes up for our very best attempt, using our greatest minds, in explaining what religious people call "the creation"?

but science only moves forward, not by assuming that all we proven is right, but assuming that what we've already proven might be either incomplete, or even totally wrong?

Didn't our best scientists once thought earth was flat? the center of the universe?
Didn't our best scientists even once thought that the universe features *had to* be godsend?

if you want to find God, then isn't the best way to go about it science?

While there are many accepted theories about pretty much everything we can observe and many that we can't even observe, there are even more theories that challenge what we now accept as true or real.
Some of those theories are, evidently, preposterous, but if anything, history have shown us that maybe some of these "crazy theories" sometimes happen to become true.

Scientists have been actually burnt to the stake and decredibilized by stating theories that eventually turned out to be real and true.

So while I do believe that believing in that imaginary friend is unlikely to be accurate, I do also believe that we don't know really much about life, the universe, why we're here, how we're here.

We have theories that appear to be correct by today's best attempt at observing them, replicating them.
But everyday, along with our progress in methods of measuring, observing, we find out that whole chunks of paradigms can fall in an instant.

We even observe things that we can't wrap our minds around, like quantum physics, the fact that material reality only exists through the eyes of the beholder (double slit experiment), how do we wrap our heads around that?

So yes, science is a very good tool in understanding our universe, but if history tells us anything, is that science is not a fixed thing, science moves, evolves, changes directions, what science deems a true today is subject to change by tomorrow, when we are able to see deeper, better, clearer, through improving our perspective, inventing new tools allowing us to get a better point of view (for example the large hadron collider)

Suddently what was "nothing" became "dark matter", and "higgs boson" and whatnot, and whole paradigms shifted massively.

so if ever we are to find traces of God, science is our best bet at finding it.

but make no mistake about it, there are more things in the universe that we don't know anything about, than the things we do.

not everything is measurable, how do you measure love, anger, fear? how do you qualify motivation, drive, dreams and ambition?

we can explain a bit of those, chemically, or through evolution theories, but by far not all of it.

does that mean love, fear, drive, hatred etc... don't exist?
yet, we can observe their effects, how they affect our lives, our countries, our world.

or even the miracle of intelligent and civilized life itself, it's such an anomaly in the universe, of course there is life all around, it has been proven and observed, I believe it as well, but I'm talking intelligent life, capable of building a civilization. There is the argument that we may be the first civilization in our galaxy. Unlikely in the whole universe, but you can have the argument that we're the first in the andromeda galaxy, scientifically.

We love, we build, we destroy, we have society, we have laws, rules, wars etc... how odd and rare is it, to encounter such an anomaly in a mostly empty universe, self conscious life.

there's one chance in several billions, yet we're here, arguing about MMA fights, how odd and unlikely is that? scientifically?
yet we're undisputably here.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

hadoq said:


> so if ever we are to find traces of God, science is our best bet at finding it.
> .


Thats true but when science disproves that God didn't make Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden with a special apple and a cunning snake that brought sickness into the world, or he didn't suddenly start talking through Mohammed and implore him to spread Islam through violence in the square one day, don't expect anyone who is religious to believe it. Because when faced with logic and the height of human intelligence religious people dismiss it for something that is far more comfortable in their brains to satisfy their own inadequacies and allow forgiveness for their faults, blind faith.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> *Thats true but when science disproves that God didn't make Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden with a special apple and a cunning snake that brought sickness into the world,* or he didn't suddenly start talking through Mohammed and implore him to spread Islam through violence in the square one day, don't expect anyone who is religious to believe it. Because when faced with logic and the height of human intelligence religious people dismiss it for something that is far more comfortable in their brains to satisfy their own inadequacies and allow forgiveness for their faults, blind faith.


It's amazing how people who can't even grasp the concept of allegory and parable are the ones lecturing about human intelligence.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

DonRifle said:


> Thats true but when science disproves that God didn't make Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden with a special apple and a cunning snake that brought sickness into the world, or he didn't suddenly start talking through Mohammed and implore him to spread Islam through violence in the square one day, don't expect anyone who is religious to believe it. Because when faced with logic and the height of human intelligence religious people dismiss it for something that is far more comfortable in their brains to satisfy their own inadequacies and allow forgiveness for their faults, blind faith.


exactly right

now, I speak 4 languages, french, english, japanese and a bit of german. I've done some translation back in the days, and it's extremely difficult, if not properly impossible to accurately (I mean 100%) translate the full meaning of a given sentence from one language to another. No matter how well you master those languages.

I consider myself to be almost as fluent in english as I am in french (which is my native language), yet, more often than not, I find myself in tight spots, trying to express an idea or an expression from one language to the other.

for example the expression "a leap of faith". While fairly clear in english, I would be unable to express exactly what it means in french.

Now when you read the Bible (I haven't read it all, but I did read some, in french), those words have originally been written in, I believe hebrew and aramaic. Then they have been translated in latin, arguably by people who had invested interest in controlling what the masses are thinking and believing.

Even if it was translated as properly and accurately as possible, it would have been changed significantly, meaning wise. But it was translated in a given, different language, during a different time and by a different culture.

then it got translated again in french, english, japanese and whatnot, again during a different context, culture.

so it is, I believe, safe to assume that the text may have changed drastically.

did you know that in some translations, Jesus might have even been a magic mushroom?!!?

So while there are religious people who are able to read between the lines and maybe extract some meaning from those translated verses, most are probably content to take them to the letter. But it's not the bible's fault, it's theirs, for being unable to just think logically by themselves, believing in just about anything a figure of authority tells them.

I sure don't believe in an invisible bearded guy, living above the clouds.
however, some christian, islamic or religious concept do resonnate with me through my own personal experience.

For example, the concept of "god is infinitely good"

how I do interpret this is that everything happens for a reason. And while many times, we believe things are unfair to us, this concept allows me to hang tight, firmly believing that there is a reason for this to happen to me, that while I don't understand the reason right now, I may understand it later down the road, and hardships usually turn into life lessons, allowing me to become a better person in the long run.

Another example is the concept of "forgiveness"

A couple years ago, my wife cheated on me and we ended up divorcing.
For a few years into our marriage, I realized I wasn't the best husband ever, spent much money on toys, and I wasn't responsible or even present for our child.
As a result of that, she drifted away from me, and it eventually ended up with her cheating on me, in order to get out of our relationship.
What I did was wrong, what she did as a result was also wrong.
But in order to realize that she was wrong, I first had to accept my fault and forgive myself because I then knew for a fact that I did my best in order to repair the harm I've caused.
But then I was able to also forgive her for what she did wrong, cheating on me. 
Through that, and the former concept (everything happens for a reason), I enabled myself to move on from this marriage in the best, most efficient way possible, all through maintaining a healthy relationship with my, now ex-wife.

I allowed myself to move on, knowing that even if I failed, I did my best to recognize and forgive my own mistakes, and understand and forgive her mistakes too.

then I proceeded to move on with my life, ending up in meeting another girl, with whom we have a great and much deeper relationship than I ever thought possible.

But those two simple concept, faith that everything happens for a reason, and also faith that through love and forgiveness, we can find the best path to live our life, helped me overcome challenges that many people can spend years recovering from, before they eventually can move on. Sometimes leaving deep psychological scars.

So while I still don't believe in that bearded dude, religious concept, or rather, concepts that can be described through religious words, effectively helped me better my life and face difficult challenges.

But I don't have to pray everyday or even at all, in order to implement these in my life. I don't have to go to church and say empty words to a wooded cross, I just apply those concepts throughout my life, convincing myself that in any given situation, love, forgiveness, courage, will help me move further forward than say hate, fear, or violence.

So it doesn't have to be dogmatic, actually I believe the dogma distracts most religious people from true meaning of the written sacred words.

But if they're not able to figure out that hatred and fear are not the way, despite what can be read in the bible even, well, that's on them. I mean if someone's stupid enough to believe that there actually was an adam and an eve, and a talking freakin snake telling them to eat some apple, well, there's not much one can do about it, they're just idiots, and in the end, they will suffer from that idiocy more than anyone, they'll have sh*tty lives, cheezy friends, moronic activities and beliefs.

f*ck em, honestly, I couldn't care less about stupid people.
I do hope they realize their stupidity one day, because until then, their own lives will s*ck quite badly, and that's a shame.
they could be contributing positively, effectively making the world a better place, but they fall into ignorance and hatred, because they're just afraid of the immensity of the very creation they believe in.

they want simple, easy concept, good and bad, adam and eve, god and satan, to try and explain what can't ever be explained, even through science.

well, that's too bad for them, cause they're missing out on the amazing experience that life actually is.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I don't feel offended about your post at all, I rather feel embarrassed for you for writing such garbage.
> 
> Although I don't speak too much about what I do here, because it is irrelevant, before this pearl of yours, I feel compelled to tell you I have myself a University Diploma in Aeronautical Science. Science and physics, among many other things like Physiology, Meteorology, Aerodynamics, Performance, Aeronautical Laws, Psychology, Human Relations, Human Factors, Security and countless other things are just knowledge I have to be up to date for my routine, since I am the Captain of a jet airliner who have travelled the world being directly responsible for the lives of, at least 8 thousand people every month, not mentioning those I am overflying.
> 
> ...


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

hadoq said:


> exactly right
> 
> now, I speak 4 languages, french, english, japanese and a bit of german. I've done some translation back in the days, and it's extremely difficult, if not properly impossible to accurately (I mean 100%) translate the full meaning of a given sentence from one language to another. No matter how well you master those languages.
> 
> ...


You're setting yourself on a pedestal against a straw man for no reason, most Christians I know are not literalists or have any hatred for anyone, they take the Bible allegorically, considering 90% of what Jesus taught was in allegory.

And no their lives don't suck, most of them have happy family lives and relationships, good balanced careers and a strong connection with nature ... I don't know why you think your so called "evolution" after a sad story sets you on a pedestal, many people learn those same lessons without going through those extremes. Sorry if I sound harsh, but so did you in your condescension.

Case in point, since everyone seems to be hot on Genesis and the Adam, Eve, Snake, Apple thing and seem bent on literally interpreting it and then being smug...

A popular ALLEGORICAL interpretation of it is Adam and Eve representing pre-civilisation humanity walking around in a verdant lush paradise (Eden - pre civ earth) filled with crystal clear waterfalls and pristine white sand and blue water beaches in complete harmony with nature, free from disease and such, like most other species even today ... you know, the kind of place you semi-visit (packed with a bunch of tourist knobs) for a week or two in a year if you're lucky, after slaving away in a plastic cube or behind a checkout counter or whatever the rest of your life. 

The apple represents Knowledge WITHOUT Good and Evil (not OF, one of those translation things you mentioned) ... you know, science without conscience, for the sake of mere profit or selfish gain rather than for actual betterment. And look at the world it has given us.. polluted, enslaved, addicted, depressed, broken. Science and knowledge is good, but not directionless for profit science, and that's what the apple represents ... the "system" we have been duped into. 

The Snake represents not a literal snake, but a deceiver, a being or collection of beings that tempted humanity with this system through lies, self-doubt, and doubt on the inherent goodness of creation.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> It's amazing how people who can't even grasp the concept of allegory and parable are the ones lecturing about human intelligence.


Lol thats hilarious. The exit strategy which defines all religious people, pick and choose when something is real, faith, or just a tale. Never mind the "This is the word of the Lord", "This is the gospel of the Lord" "We believe in one god, father of the almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen" There is not a single priest out there saying to his congregation that god creating earth, the garden of eden, Adam and Eve is just a parable or a metaphor. They are saying thats what happened, and then they tell you to bow, kneel, believe and recite without question. 

And it ain't no parable that mohammed claimed god spoke through him, and that he sat outside cities stopping the trade, starving them out and then demanding they convert or fight to the death. 

If you actually believe yourself that these things are all parables at least in the christian faith, and you are just extracting the good meanings from them fair enough, but lets not pretend 99% of religious people do that, it would be ridiculous to even suggest it. If you really believe that you have not spent any time around seriously religious people.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> You're setting yourself on a pedestal against a straw man for no reason, most Christians I know are not literalists or have any hatred for anyone, they take the Bible allegorically, considering 90% of what Jesus taught was in allegory.


Im sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit unless you have some special community of allegorical christians your involved in


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Lol thats hilarious. The exit strategy which defines all religious people, pick and choose when something is real, faith, or just a tale. Never mind the "This is the word of the Lord", "This is the gospel of the Lord" "We believe in one god, father of the almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen" There is not a single priest out there saying to his congregation that god creating earth, the garden of eden, Adam and Eve is just a parable or a metaphor. They are saying thats what happened, and then they tell you to bow, kneel, believe and recite without question.
> 
> And it ain't no parable that mohammed claimed god spoke through him, and that he sat outside cities stopping the trade, starving them out and then demanding they convert or fight to the death.
> 
> If you actually believe yourself that these things are all parables at least in the christian faith, and you are just extracting the good meanings from them fair enough, but lets not pretend 99% of religious people do that, it would be ridiculous to even suggest it. If you really believe that you have not spent any time around seriously religious people.





DonRifle said:


> Im sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit unless you have some special community of allegorical christians your involved in


Um ok, these are literally the FIRST FIVE hits when someone googles "Is genesis literal", skipping a couple of question boards, and not a SINGLE one takes Genesis literally:

http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally
https://www.gci.org/bible/genesis/sixdays
http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html
https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=267

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=is genesis literal

I can understand though that the IQ level in potato and leprechaun land might encourage such things but I don't know people from "special" communities, it's just common interpretation. Especially with things like Genesis which are clearly creation stories and things like "days" obviously don't mean literal earth days before days even existed as per the story itself.

Heck even the old school Catholic Church and the Pope endorse an allegorical interpretation of things like Genesis 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

But please, don't let that detract from your straw man.

Of course they (and I) believe in an all powerful creator that shaped it all, who was arguing against that bit? I thought we already covered that science and philosophy can't conclusively prove or disprove that either way.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I don't feel offended about your post at all, I rather feel embarrassed for you for writing such garbage.
> 
> Although I don't speak too much about what I do here, because it is irrelevant, before this pearl of yours, I feel compelled to tell you I have myself a University Diploma in Aeronautical Science. Science and physics, among many other things like Physiology, Meteorology, Aerodynamics, Performance, Aeronautical Laws, Psychology, Human Relations, Human Factors, Security and countless other things are just knowledge I have to be up to date for my routine, since I am the Captain of a jet airliner who have travelled the world being directly responsible for the lives of, at least 8 thousand people every month, not mentioning those I am overflying.
> 
> ...


Hmm. Well, in the states, you do not have to get an actual science degree (or at least what we would call a basic degree like bachelors of science in the US) to pilot an airplane. I'm sure you did have to take some classes on each of the topics you mentioned to accomplish what you did but I many of the things you listed are either soft science or not even sciences anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm sure you are an excellent pilot and these tools help you be successful at that, but that looks like more of a trade degree type of thing, not sure how truly relevant it is here. Did you do science?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

HexRei said:


> Not to be a jerk, but you do not have to get an actual science degree (or at least what we would call a basic degree like bachelors of science in the US) to pilot an airplane. I'm sure you did have to take some classes on each of the topics you mentioned to accomplish what you did but a lot of those are more of what we call soft sciences or "not sciences". Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm sure you are an excellent pilot and these tools help you be successful at that, but that looks like more of a trade degree type of thing.


So what, the dude was saying he needed to take basic Physics classes and a science degree, both of which he has. 

I doubt oordeel has a "hard science" or research degree himself, and the whole argument is stupid anyway as some of the greatest scientists in history have been theists, deists and christians, far more accomplished than pretend internet scientists and unpublished wunderkinds.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Um ok, these are literally the FIRST FIVE hits when someone googles "Is genesis literal", skipping a couple of question boards, and not a SINGLE one takes Genesis literally:
> 
> http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally
> https://www.gci.org/bible/genesis/sixdays
> ...


Who gives a shit about google when it comes to religious debate.

Trying to tell me that priests are standing up in mass telling their congregation (never mind what they teach in religious schools) that what they are saying is not literal, didn't actually happen and just to take the nice message from it is bizarre bullshit to say the least. You would almost need to have a masters degree in naivety. The distance between your 'theory' and the actual practice of christianity never mind Islam where your theory is not even a theory, is akin rising from the dead after being crucified.

You live in the country with some of the dumbest people on the planet by quite a stretch, so lets not compare intelligence of nations here, or pretend that the biggest congregations of the catholic religion are not in fact in the poorest most uneducated regions of the world, where many people would not even understand the word 'parable' or metaphor. 
Christianity is one big parable, now I've heard it all! Next you'll be saying Jesus was just a parable and christians should only take him as magic pixie dust and not actually the physical son of God born from a virgin on Xmas day. Thats just a metaphor for santa clause and giving presents I suppose.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> So what, the dude was saying he needed to take basic Physics classes and a science degree, both of which he has.
> 
> I doubt oordeel has a "hard science" or research degree himself, and the whole argument is stupid anyway as some of the greatest scientists in history have been theists, deists and christians, far more accomplished than pretend internet scientists and unpublished wunderkinds.


You sound upset. Anyway, I just don't know why he mentioned it. If he's actually done science, he should understand the scientific method and the point of empirical testing and why his arguments aren't making sense.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Um ok, these are literally the FIRST FIVE hits when someone googles "Is genesis literal", skipping a couple of question boards, and not a SINGLE one takes Genesis literally:
> 
> http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally
> https://www.gci.org/bible/genesis/sixdays
> ...


As of 2010 in the US it were 40% to take Genesis literally.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> So what, the dude was saying he needed to take basic Physics classes and a science degree, both of which he has.
> 
> I doubt oordeel has a "hard science" or research degree himself, and the whole argument is stupid anyway *as some of the greatest scientists in history have been theists, deists and christians,* far more accomplished than pretend internet scientists and unpublished wunderkinds.


That may have been in history before modern area now. But even in the last century the number of most prestigeous scientists in the US that do believe have drastically dropped from 27% in 1914 to 7% in 1998.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Who gives a shit about google when it comes to religious debate.
> 
> Trying to tell me that priests are standing up in mass telling their congregation (never mind what they teach in religious schools) that what they are saying is not literal, didn't actually happen and just to take the nice message from it is bizarre bullshit to say the least. You would almost need to have a masters degree in naivety. The distance between your 'theory' and the actual practice of christianity never mind Islam where your theory is not even a theory, is akin rising from the dead after being crucified.
> 
> ...


I like how the Irishman on an American website, which he found using an American search engine, on the American invention of the internet, using American browsers and operating systems (unless you use Linux / Opera which you don't), using the American inventions of the digital computer, mouse, keyboard, electricity etc. is lecturing everyone on how Americans are dumb ... what's your contribution in all of this, alcoholism :laugh:?

Oh let's ignore google and all the most representational Christian sites on the internet as well as the freakin pope himself, let's concentrate on your preconceived notions instead. Obviously the guys writing these websites are all "special christians" and they have figured out how the break the laws of random sampling.

I also don't know why you keep bringing Islam into this, what gives you the impression I think highly of it? As far as I'm concerned the only good bits in it are the ones drawn from Jesus, the rest is mostly manipulative doctrine by a violent cult leader. Not that Christianity doesn't have bits of that sort of thing but they're far fewer and don't form the main doctrine that is the gospels of Jesus.

Yes the Catholic areas are some of the poorest and least educated in the world, and that's EXACTLY why they don't bother explaining the deeper meanings. If you have a simple 3 year child, you don't sit down and tell him of the complexities of hydrogen fusion, you tell him about the freakin twinkling star. Same goes for general pastors are sermons, but people looking for deeper meanings do studies, readings, translations and such.

The important thing is to get the general morals and principles across as much as possible, and yes that is not done perfectly because humans are flawed and human institutions will have their failings and share of terrible people but the fact is all of the most famous institutions of science and learning that the atheists on here are proudly boasting about (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc.) were ALL founded and promoted by the very churches that atheists want to paint as "backward" and "anti science".

Also no Christians are interpreting Jesus as a mushroom or pixie dust, that's a bunch of hippies tripping in their basements, but there is such a thing as common sense when reading bits that are clearly written as moral fables with talking snakes etc. I know kids can tell the difference when they're being read parts from Aesop's fables or a history book, but apparently atheists can't.



Voiceless said:


> As of 2010 in the US it were 40% to take Genesis literally.
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx


Exactly, which means the MAJORITY (60%) don't, and yet the 40% are always held up as the representational boogeyman by saying "Duh snakes and apples hur hur".



HexRei said:


> You sound upset. Anyway, I just don't know why he mentioned it. If he's actually done science, he should understand the scientific method and the point of empirical testing and why his arguments aren't making sense.


You do realise that the rigorous scientific method you are somehow trying to "claim" was invented by Johannes Kepler who was a devout theist and his entire work focused around "the belief that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason" right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

Also it might help if you point out what bits of Sportsman's reasoning you find unscientifically derived rather than ad hominem attacks from your usual "I have a science degree" pedestal.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Exactly, which means the MAJORITY (60%) don't, and yet they're always held up as the representational boogeyman by saying "Duh snakes and apples hur hur".


Come on, don't pretend 40% is not a huge and significant number that can just be discarded.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Voiceless said:


> Come on, don't pretend 40% is not a huge and significant number that can just be discarded.


I never said it was, I said most / majority aren't like that. 

If I wasn't aware of literalists and people who obviously don't get the spirit of it, you'd hear me praising the pastor in the OP ... but the guy clearly didn't get the memo.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> lol well put, it's always the atheists with dropped out psychology degrees from bumsville community college, working the checkout counter at Macy's, playing the "renowned scientists" online :laugh:


Oh yeah where did you get your acolytes? Harvard or Yale? I know you two community collage professors think you're smart and not just smart asses but dose a license to fly a plane make you smarter than the next guy? Cool beans because I had one back when I thought I wanted to fly for a living. 



As far as sportsman flying a passenger airplane.. 


















See I can quote shit other people said too.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> Oh yeah where did you get your acolytes? Harvard or Yale? I know you two community collage professors think you're smart and not just smart asses but dose a license to fly a plane make you smarter than the next guy? Cool beans because I had one back when I thought I wanted to fly for a living.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have a Bachelors of Science in Computer Science from Iowa State which is among the top 50 computer science schools in the country and the home of the digital computer which every one of you is using at this very moment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff–Berry_computer

It's not Harvard but it was close to home back then. In the course of my career I've done work with the University of Cambridge which is the #1-3 science university in the world.

What have you done? Let me guess, Masters in Bullshit Paddycakes at Jim Harrison University?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

slapshot said:


> As far as sportsman flying a passenger airplane..


Out of personal conversations with him, I'm pretty sure he does. No need to ridicule him.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Hmm. Well, in the states, you do not have to get an actual science degree (or at least what we would call a basic degree like bachelors of science in the US) to pilot an airplane. I'm sure you did have to take some classes on each of the topics you mentioned to accomplish what you did but I many of the things you listed are either soft science or not even sciences anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm sure you are an excellent pilot and these tools help you be successful at that, but that looks like more of a trade degree type of thing, not sure how truly relevant it is here. Did you do science?





HexRei said:


> You sound upset. Anyway, I just don't know why he mentioned it. If he's actually done science, he should understand the scientific method and the point of empirical testing and why his arguments aren't making sense.


I was responding to a direct attack from a clueless poster. Not even in Brazil it is required to have a degree to fly an airplane, it happens I have a degree, where others do not.

And the difference between you and me is that I acknowlwdge everything science is capable to prove, but I also know there's a lot out of the science box you confined yourself in it.

And you sound not to different from the other moron trying to belittle what I do, so let me fly my jets while you go back to analyse rat pee, "scientist".


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> Out of personal conversations with him, I'm pretty sure he does. No need to ridicule him.


Slapshot is just another one who is only ridiculing himself.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Voiceless said:


> Out of personal conversations with him, I'm pretty sure he does. No need to ridicule him.


Ill Add that to the list of reasons I chose not to fly.



Liddellianenko said:


> I have a Bachelors of Science in Computer Science from Iowa State which is among the top 50 computer science schools in the country and the home of the digital computer which every one of you is using at this very moment.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff–Berry_computer
> 
> ...


Yes lets get right down to it, You went to a state collage for computer science, but what have you done? Surely your biggest achievement isn't simply graduating from a collage? So what have YOU done to better society?

I worked wile my wife went to collage at Montana state University to get her bachelors in nursing. I gave up my goal to go to collage so she could. So in a direct way I helped her become a person that saves lives on a daily basis. Had the logging industry not took a nose dive, I would be making just as much or more than most collage educated individuals, more than she makes that I know. So yes I do contribute to society for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

slapshot said:


> Ill Add that to the list of reasons I chose not to fly.


And one of the other reasons is you've been black listed from all major airlines.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> I like how the Irishman on an American website, which he found using an American search engine, on the American invention of the internet, using American browsers and operating systems (unless you use Linux / Opera which you don't), using the American inventions of the digital computer, mouse, keyboard, electricity etc. is lecturing everyone on how Americans are dumb ... what's your contribution in all of this, alcoholism :laugh:?
> 
> Oh let's ignore google and all the most representational Christian sites on the internet as well as the freakin pope himself, let's concentrate on your preconceived notions instead. Obviously the guys writing these websites are all "special christians" and they have figured out how the break the laws of random sampling.
> 
> ...


Lol half your country was built by Irish people and if you want to talk about Google and the likes it has 5000 employees in Dublin, far more per population head then america. Must be because we are stupid right? 
Your current president is descendent from Ireland, as was your greatest and most beloved president in your history. 
The head of your beloved UFC is from Irish roots, not to mention Rogan. Oh and the guy that makes up your name? Yeah he's Irish too...
https://www.instagram.com/p/qkANr3DiVC/embed/

And yes lets ignore the pope. Unless of course you want to talk about all the previous popes, the last one who had to resign because he presided over the systematic **** of thousands of children? Should we bring his views into the conversation? 

Christian websites? Have you gone cuckoo on me now? Are you going to start quoting Sarah Palin now? Your little niche of understanding is a long way from the reality of 'christianity'. And I will bring in Islam because we are discussing religion which is a general topic. They have exactly the same nonsense excuses of 'we interprate this, and we interprate that' we pick and choose at our convenience, and forget all the other nonsense when we feel like it.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Lol half your country was built by Irish people and if you want to talk about Google and the likes it has 5000 employees in Dublin, far more per population head then america. Must be because we are stupid right?
> Your current president is descendent from Ireland, as was your greatest and most beloved president in your history.
> The head of your beloved UFC is from Irish roots, not to mention Rogan. Oh and the guy that makes up your name? Yeah he's Irish too...
> https://www.instagram.com/p/qkANr3DiVC/embed/
> ...


I'm sure the brilliant Irish employees of Google are being very productive developing little internal report systems for their middle managers, surely they deserve some cookies for that, but it's the American headquarters where all the main products are made including your browser and search engine. 

Also I don't care what people of Irish DESCENT in AMERICA have done, because they're ... guess what ... AMERICANS. Most of them like 10th generation or something mixed with 5 other ethnicities. I'm talking about people from IRELAND which you are, so before you come up with more condescending remarks, try to come up with a modern Irish invention more relevant than a potato fortune reader. Probably a handful of minor trinkets and misattributed semi-relevant inventions in there, good job you geniuses you! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Irish_inventions_and_discoveries

Now get off our internet :laugh:.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> And one of the other reasons is you've been black listed from all major airlines.


ROFL black listed? Sure thing, you know because Im such a threat LOL.

Come on dude, lets not be so silly.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> Ill Add that to the list of reasons I chose not to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah I see we're switching from "science creds" to "betterment of society" now that you've been exposed as the half-educated condescending bum that you are.

In my 10 year career I've worked on digitising content for the world's largest publisher, providing knowledge for millions, worked directly on the world's largest browser MMO game, worked on university projects for the world's largest science universities, improvements for database technologies such as NoSQL etc. in addition to contributing to large scale open source projects with millions of users.

But all of that is irrelevant ... what I try to do to better society is volunteer with the homeless, mentally handicapped, local farming and food for the poor etc. in addition to trying to be a good husband, father, son, brother, and friend for those that love me.

I'm not sure how much the medical establishment nowadays is about saving lives than it is about making money at the cost of people's lives, but good on you that you helped your wife out.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

Since when this thread became a "pat yourself on the back" thread? :laugh:


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Leed said:


> Since when this thread became a "pat yourself on the back" thread? :laugh:


Since the generic smug internet atheist threw out the bogus "I'm more sciency than you" card as usual.


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

This thread may have gotten a little off course, but it is BY FAR the most interesting thing on the forum right now. :thumbsup:


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Ah I see we're switching from "science creds" to "betterment of society" now that you've been exposed as the half-educated condescending bum that you are.
> 
> In my 10 year career I've worked on digitising content for the world's largest publisher, providing knowledge for millions, worked directly on the world's largest browser MMO game, worked on university projects for the world's largest science universities, improvements for database technologies such as NoSQL etc. in addition to contributing to large scale open source projects with millions of users.
> 
> ...


Oh Im not switching, I was just replying to your post that seemed to be leading in that direction. 

I made a mistake, I took you for an uneducated man and it appears you are well educated. raise01:

She is a nephrology nurse because cancer treatment is a joke so she switched fields so yes every day she saves lives. Anyway about the topic no response to that?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> Oh Im not switching, I was just replying to your post that seemed to be leading in that direction.
> 
> I made a mistake, I took you for an uneducated man and it appears you are well educated. raise01:
> 
> She is a nephrology nurse because cancer treatment is a joke so she switched fields so yes every day she saves lives. Anyway about the topic no response to that eh?


No worries.

What topic do you mean? The pastor? I think he's misguided and God doesn't work like that. I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" type stuff which is mostly a few people mongering fear for the sake of control and not the spirit of the teachings.

Most of people's suffering is from their own bad choices, either individually or collectively as humanity, I don't see the benevolent all powerful being as "the vengeful punisher", merely people opening themselves to tragedy by making the wrong choices. Similar to what hadoq mentioned earlier.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HitOrGetHit said:


> This thread may have gotten a little off course, but it is BY FAR the most interesting thing on the forum right now. :thumbsup:


One thing is for sure. Conor is far wrong about being at the same level as God, since God took over his thread from page one. :laugh:


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

My point was you are like everyone else just expressing your bias opinion and you dont have any expertise about the topic that would give that opinion any more credibility than any other opinion, because you lack proof. 

I cant prove god doesn't exist but I can prove we dont have any evidence he/it ever did. That's more than what you got, one would think someone so educated would put merit in peer review and scientific method but perhaps not ..


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Just to make clear here: The discussion about "God existing or not" is a different discussion from "there's life after death or not".

Although related, those are two distinct subjects.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> I'm sure the brilliant Irish employees of Google are being very productive developing little internal report systems for their middle managers, surely they deserve some cookies for that, but it's the American headquarters where all the main products are made including your browser and search engine.
> 
> Also I don't care what people of Irish DESCENT in AMERICA have done, because they're ... guess what ... AMERICANS. Most of them like 10th generation or something mixed with 5 other ethnicities. I'm talking about people from IRELAND which you are, so before you come up with more condescending remarks, try to come up with a modern Irish invention more relevant than a potato fortune reader. Probably a handful of minor trinkets and misattributed semi-relevant inventions in there, good job you geniuses you!
> 
> ...


You see this is the problem when you argue with religious boobs. They use their own set of rules that defy logic and reason. Sidestepping anything that makes real sense to attempt to win an arugement at all costs in order to satisfy the massive crutch that props up their very existence. 
You want to use the pope for your argument?, a position that has been the most corrupt position for the last 2000 years in mankind, but quickly hide from that when met with logic. You know the reason priests can't marry? Because a pope made it illegal because when priests died they left their land and assets to their family and not the church. I wonder why they abuse children? 6% of them. But, forget all that lets use the Pope for our argument because anything he says is obviously true! :laugh::laugh:
You want to dismiss history and only use present, oh how convenient. Of course thats logical! So why shouldn't we dismiss every 'parable' as you call it as irrelevant nonsense if we can only use Feb 6 2016 in our discussion. Or which date is the max we can go back to with your religious logic? The birth of Christ or? 
Incredible irony that your own name is born out of a person who's family came from Ireland and here you are calling the country a bunch of idiots. Your probably descendent from these isles yourself and ignore your own history. This of courses makes you even smarter again. Be funny if you were actually calling yourself an idiot which seems pretty likely here :happy01:
Here we are on an MMA forum, where the best fighter in the world is currently Irish, the biggest name in the sport, the biggest draw, the most exciting fighter, and you are asking the question what has currently come out of Ireland. Now look, i know relgious people are usually the lowest educated and they struggle to form reasonable and logical thoughts, but this even for someone like that defies even those with the lowest trailer park intelligence....


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Leed said:


> Since when this thread became a "pat yourself on the back" thread? :laugh:


When you can't use logic anymore, whatever straws are there to be clutched get clutched!


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

slapshot said:


> My point was you are like everyone else just expressing your bias opinion and you dont have any expertise about the topic that would give that opinion any more credibility than any other opinion, because you lack proof.
> 
> I cant prove god doesn't exist but I can prove we dont have any evidence he/it ever did. That's more than what you got, one would think someone so educated would put merit in peer review and scientific method but perhaps not ..


It's like Sportsman said, there are things beyond the realm of the scientific method to prove or disprove. 

Using the scientific method from within a closed universe to figure out if there's anything outside of it is logically unsound, it has nothing to do with peer reviews. 

Again, like I mentioned earlier, the scientific method itself that you think somehow disproves God was INVENTED by Johannes Kepler whose main purpose behind it was to prove that "God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

If anything, people applying the scientific method correctly to phenomena of the universe will see an uncanny clockwork like pattern in how it fits together, quite contrary to the "it's all random" narrative pushed by the mainstream. 

It's not hard proof, it never will be, and is never intended to be. If you venture into the realm of philosophy, having an open all powerful God sitting right in front of you, whose will you MUST obey makes you nothing but automatons, only doing good things because it's all you CAN do. For there to be free will, it must be possible to do otherwise, and to not be able to conclusively prove the existence of God.



DonRifle said:


> You see this is the problem when you argue with religious boobs. They use their own set of rules that defy logic and reason. Sidestepping anything that makes real sense to attempt to win an arugement at all costs in order to satisfy the massive crutch that props up their very existence.
> You want to use the pope for your argument?, a position that has been the most corrupt position for the last 2000 years in mankind, but quickly hide from that when met with logic. You know the reason priests can't marry? Because a pope made it illegal because when priests died they left their land and assets to their family and not the church. I wonder why they abuse children? 6% of them. But, forget all that lets use the Pope for our argument because anything he says is obviously true! :laugh::laugh:
> You want to dismiss history and only use present, oh how convenient. Of course thats logical! So why shouldn't we dismiss every 'parable' as you call it as irrelevant nonsense if we can only use Feb 6 2016 in our discussion. Or which date is the max we can go back to with your religious logic? The birth of Christ or?
> Incredible irony that your own name is born out of a person who's family came from Ireland and here you are calling the country a bunch of idiots. Your probably descendent from these isles yourself and ignore your own history. This of courses makes you even smarter again. Be funny if you were actually calling yourself an idiot which seems pretty likely here :happy01:
> Here we are on an MMA forum, where the best fighter in the world is currently Irish, the biggest name in the sport, the biggest draw, the most exciting fighter, and you are asking the question what has currently come out of Ireland. Now look, i know relgious people are usually the lowest educated and they struggle to form reasonable and logical thoughts, but this even for someone like that defies even those with the lowest trailer park intelligence....


Who said everything the Pope said is true or that the Catholic church isn't flawed? I was telling you that EVEN THEY don't interpret Genesis literally, by their OWN DOCTRINE, let alone other christians.

I'm not Catholic and the pedophile thing was deplorable but the percentage is the same as the rest of society and positions of power over children and potential abuse exist at every school.

I know you are obsessed with your little midget crusher, but unfortunately for you the rest of the 99% of the roster in the UFC and most of MMA is American or Brazilian.

As far as I know I don't have any Irish ancestry and I don't care if I do, it's so far back. I don't even have a problem with Ireland which is a beautiful country or the Irish who are generally nice people, just smug Irish knobs like you and your lover in the thread title.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Just to make clear here: The discussion about "God existing or not" is a different discussion from "there's life sfter death or not".
> 
> Although related, those are two distinct subjects.


Actually, it depends on the context of the conversation. Seeing as we are debating the existence of god and eternal life is part of that narrative it's not. 

You can separate "life after death" from God the bible and religion but you cant separate religion from life after death that im aware of, to my knowledge there are no religions that dont profess an afterlife.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

what this thread needs is a poll. let's show god how many of us want to see goober struck by lightning.:thumbsup:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

slapshot said:


> Actually, it depends on the context of the conversation. Seeing as we are debating the existence of god and eternal life is part of that narrative it's not.
> 
> You can separate "life after death" from God the bible and religion but you cant separate religion from life after death that im aware of, to my knowledge *there are no religions that dont profess an afterlife.*


Indeed, but you can discuss the after death from a scientific point of view, disregarding any connection to any religion. That is what scientific curiosity would research on the matter and many people already have.

Science is not only about what you already know, but also about what you want to know next. The very idea scientists would sit a road block to preventing them from look further is crazy for me.

Science discoveries are made every day by ordinary people, *regardless* of the studies that are already well documented to make them old news. Every day, a two years old baby somewhere in the world figures out for the first time water and earth make mud. This is science.

Books are re-written because new observations are made by regular people and new researches have to be made. I can say that on my area too. We observe things on our routine that don't match what is written in books and by reporting those findings, we are triggering new researches and books are updated from the info we gathered.

We only know a tiny fraction of what is out there. We see physical, electrical, magnetic phenomenons going on every day. We see things we didn't see before and we want to know about, but it is incredible how the media can dictate what is sound to go after and what is considered crazyness not even worth a proper look into.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> It's like Sportsman said, there are things beyond the realm of the scientific method to prove or disprove.
> 
> Using the scientific method from within the universe to figure out if there's anything outside of it is logically unsound, it has nothing to do with peer reviews.
> 
> ...


I just see everything you said as a intellectual work around. I just dont believe in supernatural anything because it can be measured. 

We had these neighbors who when they moved in seemed like nice people, went to church etc. 

Three weeks later they were preforming religious rituals, they looked crazy, irrational, they felt and saw ghosts in a house that has never even had one person die wile living there. 

But wait there is more, to this day if you go to church you'll hear about the story but you wont hear the truth.

They were all suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning and even worse the pastor knows! He was told because he was exposed to it but he sees an opportunity to propagate his belief so he goes on telling about the time he ran into evil spirits. 

But the point is, what if what you believe is just a trick of bias and perception hell sight itself is an illusion. but we only know that because we can measure the material and if you want to say a pink ethereal pony sits at your side I cant disprove it but once you say it can reach into the physical world and jerk you off with its trunk, Im going to have to see it to believe it. 









If we can prove multi dimensional existence, dose that mean we have proof of the supernatural? No, it means we measure and test theory. You cant prove a negative.


oldfan said:


> what this thread needs is a poll. let's show god how many of us want to see goober struck by lightning.:thumbsup:


#wouldwatch

I swear, if that prick goes golfing in a thunderstorm Ill kill him myself.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Who said everything the Pope said is true or that the Catholic church isn't flawed? I was telling you that EVEN THEY don't interpret Genesis literally, by their OWN DOCTRINE, let alone other christians.
> 
> I'm not Catholic and the pedophile thing was deplorable but the percentage is the same as the rest of society and positions of power over children and potential abuse exist at every school.
> 
> ...


No the percentages are not the same, 6% of teachers do not have sex with children, if they did society would not function. Your saying a teacher in every school has sex with kids under 12? Good one! I'll stack that point up with your other facts of the day. 

Lets not quote the Pope then and priests since they are extremely fallible people that are intrinsically damaged due to restrictions on their sexuality and ability to live a normal human life. With popes being some of the most corrupt people in history, once upon a time making people pay to get into heaven in order to feed a papal army, lets not quote them either if you want to actually back up your argument with some credibility....

So now you don't have a problem after basically saying the country is full of dumb people, and its just me thats the problem cause Im smug because I debate with a bit of reason, instead of niche theories that apply to the few truly enlightened in whatever niche religious group you adhere to. Oh i do apologise for my smugness!
Funny how the religious arguments always fall to pieces when tested with a few shreds of intelligence...


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

lol @ referencing James Randi as a rebuttal to Sportsman's post.

Randi is a deceiving fraud and a coward. Rumors circulating that he likes little kids too.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

oldfan said:


> what this thread needs is a poll. let's show god how many of us want to see goober struck by lightning.:thumbsup:


Conor would be fine if sitting inside my Faraday Cage. :thumbsup:


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> lol @ referencing James Randi as a rebuttal to Sportsman's post.
> 
> Randi is a deceiving fraud and a coward. Rumors circulating that he likes little kids too.


Should have known you would pop in to muddy the water..

But tell me how that has anything to do with scientific theory, is it all a lie? Is the world flat, do reptle men walk the earth, LOL. 

Bill Cosby was a rapist, a really funny one. I cant even watch his shows because he's so vile. But its only not funny because I dont like him not because he's not good at his profession.

That's whats cool about scientific method, it can be repeated by anyone with the knowledge to do so, that's why we can toss out the individual and look at the method, now if you have a bitch with the method Im all ears. 

Personally I dont put a ton of significance in any one opinion but more on the body of work and we all know enough to know we know so little.. 

I dont claim to have all the answers .. Religion does.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ty-and-religion-are-they-genetic-adaptations/


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Again, like I mentioned earlier, the scientific method itself that you think somehow disproves God was INVENTED by Johannes Kepler whose main purpose behind it was to prove that "God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason".


So¿ Him inventing a system to prove the god he had in mind to be the creator of the world is not a prove of it actually being true. Scientists all the time have theories, want to prove them, but results point in another direction.

Fact is, since Kepler more and more scientists have turned away from believing in god. If you take the most prestigeous contemporary scientists, only a small minority still does believe.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

slapshot said:


> That's whats cool about scientific method, *it can be repeated by anyone with the knowledge to do so*, that's why we can toss out the individual and look at the method, now if you have a bitch with the method Im all ears.


Spiritual researches and methods (and I said spiritual, not religious) are repeated everyday and are only beyond the knowledge of scientists because mostly have locked themselves outside. However, even though they don't have the knowledge about those things, they just state people who interact with spirits are nuts.

Basically, one group is defending what's inside a box while another has acknowledged what's inside the box already and moved ahead to open new windows.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

slapshot said:


> Should have known you would pop in to muddy the water..
> 
> But tell me how that has anything to do with scientific theory, is it all a lie? Is the world flat, do reptle men walk the earth, LOL.
> 
> ...


What on earth has this post got to do with my post and James Randi - a magician, not a scientist?

Where have I ever stated I have problem with the scientific method or supported religion?

You're aware that the video I posted was from a Cambridge educated scientist who also studied philosophy at Harvard? Sheldrake scientifically investigates the "supernatural" you seem to have such a problem with, perhaps you should look him up.

I also do find it amusing how such a man of science and one that constantly harps on about "evidence" justifies his meat eating tendencies by claiming that plants feel pain like animals, without a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to back it up. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You're not a man of science, you're a man of bias.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

Is Liddell really of Irish descent though? Or is he of British decent who claims to be Irish? (Plenty of them) I know the Liddell surname is a very important and historic surname of North-East England, a friend of mine, one of my old school teachers and even some neigbours back home have this surname.

http://www.amren.com/features/2012/01/where-are-the-english-americans/

People love a good underdog story and all that.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

This "Scientific Community" is very much like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). They will give the Oscar to movies you thought really sucked while sidelining others you thought were really great. In the end, it will interfere nothing with the opinion of people who are not empty heads. We all know both these "communities" have their decisions affected by political reasons.

Actually, many scientists worship this "Scientific Community" same way fanatic religious people worship their books and Gods.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> What on earth has this post got to do with my post and James Randi - a magician, not a scientist?
> 
> Where have I ever stated I have problem with the scientific method or supported religion?
> 
> ...


Actually it is science, the studies are out there to look at but yes I do believe they feel pain on some level. Its not as crazy as some theories so stop with the gibberish. 

I thought you were attempting to paint a person as a child molester and then say a child molester's scientific analysis cant be trusted. I confess I dont read/watch most of your dribble so there is the possibility I misunderstood.


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I don't feel offended about your post at all, I rather feel embarrassed for you for writing such garbage.
> 
> Although I don't speak too much about what I do here, because it is irrelevant, before this pearl of yours, I feel compelled to tell you I have myself a University Diploma in Aeronautical Science. Science and physics, among many other things like Physiology, Meteorology, Aerodynamics, Performance, Aeronautical Laws, Psychology, Human Relations, Human Factors, Security and countless other things are just knowledge I have to be up to date for my routine, since I am the Captain of a jet airliner who have travelled the world being directly responsible for the lives of, at least 8 thousand people every month, not mentioning those I am overflying.
> 
> ...


I should be embarrassed about asking questions and you don't have an inkling of embarrassment about some of the shit you posted without any evidence or proof? And then you wonder why people question your understanding of how science works? 
And if you want to brag about something, don't do it about a being a pilot. You got a silly pilot's degree. You should pick something that actually requires some work or effort to achieve, like for example Aeronautical engineering, but then you wouldn't be on this board sounding like moron.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Pastor Donnie Romero, a priest, a Rabbi and Conor McGegor play golf in a thunderstorm......




and on the other side of the world jose Aldo is struck by lightning in his home. 

6 million words later MMAF can prove that luck was not involved in Aldo's death but not sure if god exists. :laugh:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

gazh said:


> Is Liddell really of Irish descent though? Or is he of British decent who claims to be Irish? (Plenty of them) I know the Liddell surname is a very important and historic surname of North-East England, a friend of mine, one of my old school teachers and even some neigbours back home have this surname.
> 
> http://www.amren.com/features/2012/01/where-are-the-english-americans/
> 
> People love a good underdog story and all that.


Scottish Irish according to an interview he did here a couple years ago. Matt Hughes is from Irish descent too, but he's a c*** so we won't talk about him :laugh:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

oordeel said:


> I should be embarrassed about asking questions and you don't have an inkling of embarrassment about some of the shit you posted without any evidence or proof? And then you wonder why people question your understanding of how science works?
> And if you want to brag about something, don't do it about a being a pilot. You got a silly pilot's degree. You should pick something that actually requires some work or effort to achieve, like for example Aeronautical engineering, but then you wouldn't be on this board sounding like moron.


Easy, easy, now. You've been knocked out, but everything will be just fine. Don't need to try saying stupid things you have absolutely no clue about again to avoid further embarrassment, meaning, you have no clue what is covered in my degree, so, just save it and back to your checkout desk at Macy's, as been said around here.

PS: I'll take my chances and guess you don't have an Aeronautical Engineer degree of your own, right?


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Easy, easy, now. You've been knocked out, but everything will be just fine. Don't need to try saying stupid things you have absolutely no clue about again to avoid further embarrassment, meaning, you have no clue what is covered in my degree, so, just save it and back to your checkout desk at Macy's, as been said around here.
> 
> PS: I'll take my chances and guess you don't have an Aeronautical Engineer degree of your own, right?


Your degree is probably purchasable on the dark webs. :thumb02:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

slapshot said:


> Your degree is probably purchasable on the dark webs. :thumb02:


And it costs as much bitcoins as your Harrison's belt. :hug:


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Voiceless said:


> So¿ Him inventing a system to prove the god he had in mind to be the creator of the world is not a prove of it actually being true. Scientists all the time have theories, want to prove them, but results point in another direction.
> 
> Fact is, since Kepler more and more scientists have turned away from believing in god. If you take the most prestigeous contemporary scientists, only a small minority still does believe.


Fact is the statistics of most "scientists" not believing in a creator are padded by pumping modern universities full of useless soft sciences like Women's studies, Race studies etc. which are agendas more than sciences, agendas obviously prone to believing a certain way that fits their indoctrinated liberal worldview. It's a nice trick by the establishment.

In reality a good chunk of the ACTUAL scientists making relevant discoveries at any age have also believed in theism. Nobel laurates in Physics and Chemistry, the most famous astronomers of the day, presidents of IEEE etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...hnology#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29



DonRifle said:


> No the percentages are not the same, 6% of teachers do not have sex with children, if they did society would not function. Your saying a teacher in every school has sex with kids under 12? Good one! I'll stack that point up with your other facts of the day.
> 
> Lets not quote the Pope then and priests since they are extremely fallible people that are intrinsically damaged due to restrictions on their sexuality and ability to live a normal human life. With popes being some of the most corrupt people in history, once upon a time making people pay to get into heaven in order to feed a papal army, lets not quote them either if you want to actually back up your argument with some credibility....
> 
> ...


You're a moron patting yourself on the back for your non existent shreds of intelligence, how beautiful the ignorance of fools is. 

You keep going back to priests as if I held them up as saints when I was just using their words to clarify what even THEY believed i.e. non literalism.

What certain human organised religious sects do does not reflect on the actual question of a supreme creator or an afterlife existing.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Fact is the statistics of most "scientists" not believing in a creator are padded by pumping modern universities full of useless soft sciences like Women's studies, Race studies etc. which are agendas more than sciences, agendas obviously prone to believing a certain way that fits their indoctrinated liberal worldview. It's a nice trick by the establishment.
> 
> In reality a good chunk of the ACTUAL scientists making relevant discoveries at any age have also believed in theism. Nobel laurates in Physics and Chemistry, the most famous astronomers of the day, presidents of IEEE etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...hnology#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29


You keep using these unprecise words like "a good chunk" which don't mean anything.

Fact is, compared to the general population (~4% non-believer), even your _average_ garden-variety college scientist (that includes scientists from the bible belt and your soft sciences) is ten times more likely a non-believer (41%)
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

But as I said before, concerning hard science, among the contemporary most _elite_ scientists (National Academy of Sciences - including 200 Nobel prize laureates [that's roughly one in ten of their members].) th trend is pretty clear: numbers of believers are consequently going down:


```
BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD          1914   1933    1998

     Personal belief                 27.7    15       7.0
     Personal disbelief              52.7    68      72.2
     Doubt or agnosticism            20.9    17      20.8

     BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY           1914    1933    1998

     Personal belief                 35.2    18       7.9
     Personal disbelief              25.4    53      76.7
     Doubt or agnosticism            43.7    29      23.3
```
From, article *"Leading scientists still reject God"*, full quote here:





> *Leading scientists still reject God*
> 
> Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
> 
> ...



http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

original article was in Nature magazine
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html

---

On a side note, besides jailing their corrupt banksters responsible for the 2008 banking crises - while traditionally having been a Christian country for the last several hundred years, today 0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe God created the world.
http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/...er-believe-god-created-world-new-poll-reveals


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> You're a moron patting yourself on the back for your non existent shreds of intelligence, how beautiful the ignorance of fools is.
> 
> You keep going back to priests as if I held them up as saints when I was just using their words to clarify what even THEY believed i.e. non literalism.
> 
> What certain human organised religious sects do does not reflect on the actual question of a supreme creator or an afterlife existing.


Your clearly the moron in this subject. Your context of using priests is ridiculous because its fundamentally wrong. Your taking google links as if the reality is that priests are actually preaching that the bible and readings in the bible are actually just parables and not facts which is some of the biggest nonsense ive ever heard. just ask yourself what the congregations actually say when in church and mass and tell me that 'this is the gospel of the lord, praise to your lord jesus christ', 'this is the word of the lord', the one who supposedly created us,all of it is just parables and the people understand as such. I mean what kind of level of naivity are you trying to sell here? Islam is perfectly apt in this discussion also because its just a multiplier, wading through seas of infidel blood, is not a parable its a statement. Thou Shalt not steal is not a parable its a statement. On the first day God created the earth, is not a parable its a statement. 

In countries where priests are relevant these days, ie. poor ones, just like I said they don't even know what the word parable means, let alone consider that Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for life in some way and not actually how the world started. So get off your idiot horse and stop pretending like your little niche of understanding of how religious doctrine is preached and supposed to be understood is in any way reflective of how religion is actually disseminated to church goers in the greater world. Probably a billion people are going to mass today to stand up and recite prayers like the Creed in a monotone believing that God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen without question. 
That is all aside from the fact your using paedo's to back up your argument which i simply pulled apart because they are not credible sources for anything, and in a real debates you should use proper sources for reliable information, not people being brought up on crimes against humanity. Your source for all your thoughts in this is clearly some small interpretation of christianity you have adopted that you would like to project across the world, and it simply isn't true on a wider scale. 

The question of a supreme creator or an afterlife was not where I jumped on you in this debate. I believe there is the possibility of that, however small, but I came in because you were saying that people understand the bible etc as all parables and not actually real. That i disagree with because its simply nonsense, yet you were hammering another poster on that basis.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Easy, easy, now. You've been knocked out, but everything will be just fine. Don't need to try saying stupid things you have absolutely no clue about again to avoid further embarrassment, meaning, you have no clue what is covered in my degree, so, just save it and back to your checkout desk at Macy's, as been said around here.
> 
> PS: I'll take my chances and guess you don't have an Aeronautical Engineer degree of your own, right?


Bro, do you even lift?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Voiceless said:


> You keep using these unprecise words like "a good chunk" which don't mean anything.
> 
> Fact is, compared to the general population (~4% non-believer), even your _average_ garden-variety college scientist (that includes scientists from the bible belt and your soft sciences) is ten times more likely a non-believer (41%)
> http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
> ...


The fact that your figures vary so wildly shows how biased the statistical sampling is - 40% of randomly sampled scientists believe in God, yet only 7% of "greater scientists" .. whatever that is.

The 7% "greater scientist" figure is so laughably biased it's appalling :laugh:. So only politicised scientists who join the politically motivated "National Academy of Sciences" count as great? 

Really, forget numbers of published and cited research, derived work etc. the only criteria to be "great" is to join an old boys club started by government with an agenda :happy02:.

You, as most atheists do, are falsely tying atheism with science whereas there is absolutely no such link. It's enough to fool the general populace like slapshot, who are surprised that an educated guy can believe in a higher power which is exactly the agenda. 

There is a strong (largely successful) push by media and opinion makers (like the "unbiased" Pew) to embed in public consciousness the idea that spirituality is associated with poverty and ignorance, and atheism with the "intellectual", when there is no such case in reality.

In reality it is a near even split even by your own figures, and if you looked into the actual creds of the splits concerned, you might find an even more sorry story for your "facts". Even if Pew figures were actually reliable:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...pinion_polls_when_so_few_people_respond_.html



DonRifle said:


> Your clearly the moron in this subject. Your context of using priests is ridiculous because its fundamentally wrong. Your taking google links as if the reality is that priests are actually preaching that the bible and readings in the bible are actually just parables and not facts which is some of the biggest nonsense ive ever heard. just ask yourself what the congregations actually say when in church and mass and tell me that 'this is the gospel of the lord, praise to your lord jesus christ', 'this is the word of the lord', the one who supposedly created us,all of it is just parables and the people understand as such. I mean what kind of level of naivity are you trying to sell here? Islam is perfectly apt in this discussion also because its just a multiplier, wading through seas of infidel blood, is not a parable its a statement. Thou Shalt not steal is not a parable its a statement. On the first day God created the earth, is not a parable its a statement.
> 
> In countries where priests are relevant these days, ie. poor ones, just like I said they don't even know what the word parable means, let alone consider that Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for life in some way and not actually how the world started. So get off your idiot horse and stop pretending like your little niche of understanding of how religious doctrine is preached and supposed to be understood is in any way reflective of how religion is actually disseminated to church goers in the greater world. Probably a billion people are going to mass today to stand up and recite prayers like the Creed in a monotone believing that God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen without question.
> That is all aside from the fact your using paedo's to back up your argument which i simply pulled apart because they are not credible sources for anything, and in a real debates you should use proper sources for reliable information, not people being brought up on crimes against humanity. Your source for all your thoughts in this is clearly some small interpretation of christianity you have adopted that you would like to project across the world, and it simply isn't true on a wider scale.
> ...


I don't care about the catholic church and don't follow organised religion per se, though I'll visit churches outside of service sometimes because they're peaceful places to contemplate and connect so don't take my stance as some sort of blanket support for organised religion or how it's filled with perfect angels.

But my reply to hadoq was indeed accurate as I interact with christians who are regular in services and such and most of them look for deeper allegorical meanings within texts that are clearly inclined to such reading, like Genesis.

You, as hadoq was, are using the fallacy of marking the beliefs of extreme authority figures as representational of the beliefs of general christians, and I showed that on paper even they don't vouch for such extreme beliefs. 

And of course guys on stage aren't going to preach deeper meanings, it's organised religion and being too much of an individualist means going against doctrines and such ... but in reality at a ground level it's usually people doing readings and finding meanings on their own, people who are quite nice and whose lives are actually fine and don't suck (like probably most people's favorite MMA fighters on here), unlike the posters making the attacks.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> The fact that your figures vary so wildly shows how biased the statistical sampling is - 40% of randomly sampled scientists believe in God, yet only 7% of "greater scientists" .. whatever that is.
> 
> The 7% "greater scientist" figure is so laughably biased it's appalling :laugh:. So only shitty politicised scientists who join the politically motivated "National Academy of Sciences" count as great?
> 
> ...


Who would have thought you make a political/government conspiracy out of it. As long as they serve your stance (i.e. some Nobel prize laureates, ONE former IEEE president) it's all fine, but as soon as it turns around and the majority of one of the most prestigeous scientific associations (NAS having 200 Nobel prize laureates, which is a bit more of a "chunk" than that handful on your wikipedia page, which so far is your only source you were able to come up with to support your claim) don't support your stance, they are all just liberal government agenda sheep (btw. I don't know of a single US president who did not believe in god. The last, G.W. Bush jr. even is a fundamental born again Christian and heavy supporter of bringing creationism as equal approach to evolution into biology classrooms).

Fact is, no matter what research on the topic you take, they all show, the more scientific educated people are, the less likely they believe compared to the general population. If you want to deny that, come up with published research and not some random wikipedia page and meaningless phrases like "a good chunk".


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Voiceless said:


> Who would have thought you make a political/government conspiracy out of it. As long as they serve your stance (i.e. some Nobel prize laureates, ONE former IEEE president) it's all fine, but as soon as it turns around and the majority of one of the most prestigeous scientific associations (NAS having 200 Nobel prize laureates, which is a bit more of a "chunk" than that handful on your wikipedia page, which so far is your only source you were able to come up with to support your claim) don't support your stance, they are all just liberal government agenda sheep (btw. I don't know of a single US president who did not believe in god. The last, G.W. Bush jr. even is a fundamental born again Christian and heavy supporter of bringing creationism as equal approach to evolution into biology classrooms).
> 
> Fact is, no matter what research on the topic you take, they all show, the more scientific educated people are, the less likely they believe compared to the general population. If you want to deny that, come up with published research and not some random wikipedia page and meaningless phrases like "a good chunk".


Not the ol "most politicians are christians" trope again. You probably buy it when Donald Trump claims to be one too and then can't even recite a single quote from the book without stammering and misdirecting to his own crappy book.

http://www.techinsider.io/donald-trump-quotes-bible-wrong-at-liberty-university-2016-1

The fact is government is the most anti-faith and anti-family power group in the world while pretending to be for both those things. Their policies and agendas consistently point the other way even when their figureheads and mouthpieces are thumping bibles.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Not the ol "most politicians are christians" trope again. You probably buy it when Donald Trump claims to be one too and then can't even recite a single quote from the book without stammering and misdirecting to his own crappy book.
> 
> http://www.techinsider.io/donald-trump-quotes-bible-wrong-at-liberty-university-2016-1
> 
> The fact is government is the most anti-faith and anti-family power group in the world while pretending to be for both those things. Their policies and agendas consistently point the other way even when their figureheads and mouthpieces are thumping bibles.


So no source again except an article showing that Trump is an idiot. At least we can agree on that :thumbsup:

btw. concerning the true to the bible Christians in the US.



Liddellianenko said:


> I never said it was, I said most / majority aren't like that.
> 
> If I wasn't aware of literalists and people who obviously don't get the spirit of it, you'd hear me praising the pastor in the OP ... but the guy clearly didn't get the memo.


You were also wrong. *40%* of US *citizens* (not only US Christians) believe in creation, with that they are still the biggest group. *38%* believe in a god guided evolution and *16%* think of pure evolution whithout god playing any part in it (atheists, agnostics etc.), the rest didn't give an answer. So only if you team up with those godless heathens you are more than those "crazy creationists" (what a lovely alliteration) 










http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

Btw. another instance showing the higher the education, the less likely people believe:


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Voiceless said:


> So no source again except an article showing that Trump is an idiot. At least we can agree on that :thumbsup:
> 
> btw. concerning the true to the bible Christians in the US.
> 
> ...


Creationism and Theism are two separate things. I like how atheists bait and switch the two issues together.

Of course less educated people are more likely to believe in literal versions of creation whereas more educated believe in a higher being working through the processes he created. 

How does this have any of this have bearing on the existence of said being being an "unintellectual" position, as atheists like to project?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Creationism and Theism are two separate things. I like how atheists bait and switch the two issues together.


I don't switch the two issues together. I just responded to YOUR claim in YOUR discussion with DonRifle that most (of course again using fuzzy unprecise wording) Christians don't take the bible literally (-> creationism) and thereby insinuitated this group could be neglected in the discussion. I just showed you that your claim was incorrect as they indeed are the biggest group among the believers.



> Of course less educated people are more likely to believe in literal versions of creation whereas more educated believe in a higher being working through the processes he created.
> 
> How does this have any of this have bearing on the existence of said being being an "unintellectual" position, as atheists like to project?


Do you even read¿ There are three columns, two of them show people who believe in a god involvement, one of those two literally (creationists) and the other as guided evolution (basically your allegorical stance), the THIRD column (in the middle) think god played no part at all - and it shows a clear trend: the higher the education the more opt for this third option (Postgraduates about three times that of High School or less)


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> Bro, do you even lift?


Several tons everytime I pull the yoke.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Several tons everytime I pull the yoke.


That really sounds like you've trained well with this device:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> That really sounds like you've trained well with this device:


LOL. :laugh:

PS: I'll send this link to my friends who fly Airbus. They love that "stick".


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

Who cares if graduates and intellectuals are more likely to be atheists. Intellectualism does not = intelligence. I'll say that again, intellectualism is NOT intelligence.

Most intellectual atheists don't believe in free will, they don't actually believe you can choose to participate in good/bad actions in the world. Most are also moral relativists. 

Intellectual atheists are seriously lacking in true intelligence, common sense, emotional sensitivity and creativity. Kind of like a computer - excellent at storing and processing information and intel, but zero creative capacity or ability to think outside of the box and use imagination.

Why do people worship intellectualism so much? It's just one facet of the human experience. I'll take someone who is emotionally intelligent and is compassionate over some intellectual richard dawkins any day.


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Who cares if graduates and intellectuals are more likely to be atheists. Intellectualism does not = intelligence. I'll say that again, intellectualism is NOT intelligence.
> 
> Most intellectual atheists don't believe in free will, they don't actually believe you can choose to participate in good/bad actions in the world. Most are also moral relativists.
> 
> Intellectual atheists are seriously lacking in true intelligence, common sense, emotional sensitivity and creativity. Kind of like a computer - excellent at storing and processing information and intel, but zero creative capacity or ability to think outside of the box and use imagination.


Where is the data that backs this up? This is nothing more than an opinion. It literally means nothing.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

oordeel said:


> Where is the data that backs this up? This is nothing more than an opinion. It literally means nothing.


Let's try this out and use you as a sample:

You're an intellectual (or perhaps think you are and identify as one)
You're an atheist
Don't believe in any other higher power beside man
No intelligence or guiding force behind evolution
You're rigidly skeptical
See most people, animals as separate from you, don't see the connectdness between all living things
Believes in moral relativism
Skeptical of free will or believes it doesn't actually exist and human beings are biological robots
Believes in authority and looks up to authoritarian figures in your particular field (i.e. puts doctors, scientists etc on a pedestal and very rarely questions their positions of power)
Looks down on emotional intelligence and sensitivity
Lacking in true compassion
Lacking in creative ability (creative writing, music, art, ability to think outside the box, use imagination
Perceives animals as "lesser" beings and doesn't care about their enslavement
Values intelligence on accumulating and processing information, with little or no regard to emotional intelligence/compassion

Now, I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure almost if not all of those things about you will be true. You fit the stereotypical mold of the intellectual lacking in intelligence.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

oordeel said:


> *Where is the data that backs this up?* This is nothing more than an opinion. It literally means nothing.


You just proved Reptilian's point... 



ReptilianSlayer said:


> ... Kind of like a computer - excellent at storing and processing information and intel, but zero creative capacity or ability to think outside of the box and use imagination.


Looking for data. Looking for a source. Unable to think out of the box. Unable to start an inquiry by yourself. Unable to pursue your own curiosity. But ready to dismiss ideas coming from real truth seekers.

Actually, I am surprised you still have the brave face to post on this thread.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

You repeat your points, trying to hide that with minimal variation.



ReptilianSlayer said:


> Let's try this out and use you as a sample:





> You're an intellectual (or perhaps think you are and identify as one)
> Values intelligence on accumulating and processing information, with little or no regard to emotional intelligence/compassion
> Skeptical of free will or believes it doesn't actually exist and human beings are biological robots


Are basically the same in different wording.



> You're an atheist
> Don't believe in any other higher power beside man
> No intelligence or guiding force behind evolution
> You're rigidly skeptical


Are basically the same in different wording.



> See most people, animals as separate from you, don't see the connectdness between all living things
> Perceives animals as "lesser" beings and doesn't care about their enslavement


Are basically the same in different wording. Is true for the big majority all humans.



> Believes in moral relativism
> Looks down on emotional intelligence and sensitivity
> Lacking in true compassion


Are basically the same in different wording.



> Believes in authority and looks up to authoritarian figures in your particular field (i.e. puts doctors, scientists etc on a pedestal and very rarely questions their positions of power)


Doesn't really fit to being rigidly skeptical. Usually fits rather for people of faith (=believing without proof)



> Lacking in creative ability (creative writing, music, art, ability to think outside the box, use imagination


Completely random made up assumption.



> Now, I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure almost if not all of those things about you will be true. You fit the stereotypical mold of the intellectual lacking in intelligence.


Half of your points fit to any average Western human and/or people of faith. The rest is basically your usual rambling of people who eating meat and don't believe in aliens abducting people are bad therefore lack intelligence.


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Let's try this out and use you as a sample:
> 
> You're an intellectual (or perhaps think you are and identify as one)
> You're an atheist
> ...


Let me humor you on your 'analysis'. Of all the things you've listed, 2 are correct (indeed, you don't know me). Everything else is incorrect. As a matter of fact, people that know me would laugh and say most of your points are opposite of how I am. In any case, I could go through your list and refute all but 2, but I think that's just going to lead to another pointless debate. A debate that is impossible for you to win, since nobody knows me better than myself. However, using your logic, I could use this post to discredit anything you say and label you. End of discussion! See how utterly ridiculous that is?

This goes both ways, I can sit here and write down a list of bullet points of the kind of person I think you are (for example, stereotypical conspiracy nut too busy to do some actual research)or how you think. Some might even be right and some not, but at the end of the day, that's just my opinion. It simply holds no validity.

I try really hard not to judge people and try to be open minded (work in progress). I have no issues at all about accepting the fact that there are a lot of things we don't know yet. I'm also very open to criticism and am usually very positive about being proven wrong, because to me that just means there's another opportunity to learn something new. I'm also not easily offended, unless someone is actually insulting me or name calling (considering the source). 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So people sitting in this thread writing out essays about shit they 'experienced' or heard about, without a single shred of evidence and not even understanding how to produce said evidence, but still pawning it off as fact, well, that needs to be called out for what it is, which is bullshit.
I think voiceless, hexrei and mc have done a great job with trying to explain it and if that didn't work, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

:bored03:


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Oh my! Some of you people on your high horses get awfully sassy


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

*Contradictions galore...*



oordeel said:


> I try really hard not to judge people...





oordeel said:


> i think you lack the basic or fundamental understanding/education...


You should try harder without telling people you are trying yet.



oordeel said:


> ...and try to be open minded.





oordeel said:


> ...people and their silly fairy tales... My imaginary friend is going to spank you!





oordeel said:


> I don't differentiate between fairy tales. They are all equally silly to me and it's silly to me that adults still believe in that.


Same thing. Try harder to pretend you are open minded, but do it in quiet mode to avoid these embarrassing contradictions.




oordeel said:


> Where is the data that backs this up? This is nothing more than an opinion. It literally means nothing.





oordeel said:


> You should pick something that actually requires some work or effort to achieve, like for example *Aeronautical engineering, but then you wouldn't be on this board sounding like moron.*


Because Aeronautical Engineers do have the more adequate base to speak about this subject, right? Even though you don't have a clue what they do.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I think a lot of you guys define people too often by specific labels. Someone can follow an organised religion without even reading the entire bible or looking into some of the darker history of Christianity or otherwise and still be a fantastic person in every regard. Intelligence, compassion, everything isn't defined by singular aspects.

For example, we have someone posting 'evidence' of religion crossed with education as if to prove that education and atheism go hand in hand. By that logic, go through the UFC roster, pick the Christians and you will make a ridiculously strong account that explains believing in Jesus makes you a better martial artist. It doesn't, but using singular things and cross referencing them doesn't give you a factual outcome. It's like checking how many of those intelligent people have blue eyes and deciding that blue eyed atheists are smarter than green eyed atheists. 

Instead of asking someone's religion as a basis of their intelligence, assess their intellect on an individual level. My only point in this thread was that certain atheists would condemn the religious for forcing their faith upon people but on the other hand is telling the religious that their belief system is silly. If someone wants to put a lot of solace into a book or whatever else, as long as they aren't harming someone else then it's cool.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

LizaG said:


> Oh my! Some of you people on your high horses get awfully sexy


Fixed that for you :thumbsup:


On a side note on



ReptilianSlayer said:


> You're an atheist
> Don't believe in any other higher power beside man
> No intelligence or guiding force behind evolution
> You're rigidly skeptical





> See most people, animals as separate from you, don't see the connectdness between all living things
> Perceives animals as "lesser" beings and doesn't care about their enslavement


Funnily, most of the vegans I know happen to also be atheists. Of course, that's not a scientific reliable sample size. But also interesting, Berlin is notorious for being one of the most atheist regions in Germany, it is also the city with the biggest trend in veganism and organic food. It also happens to be the most artistic city in Germany.

Apparently your bogeyman "atheists" mixes pretty well with your favorisms... but this shall be a different discussion...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

^I was actually thinking the same. If I had to pick two atheists on here it'd have been Liddell and Rep :laugh:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

*Science explained for kids.*

Really, what is the ado people make about it? Didn't we all make science either by replicating an experiment for exercise or to figure things on our own?

Important to know that the first thing before any research or experiment will be made, they have the *hypotheses*. But even before that, I would say we need something to trigger our curiosity and after that, we would come with hypotheses and then proceed with the experiments to check if that hypotheses or theory will be validated.

So, when any ordinary person faces something unusual, the natural process is to be curious about it, to investigate it and cross check the results. This can be applied to any given thing, including paranormal, extra sensorial activities. Because "official" researchers don't devote their times to look up on these type of things for the reasons already spoken here (political, economical, religious, lack of finnance, tabu...) it doesn't mean independent parties don't have most of these studies completed.

Any person can do their researches and find their conclusions. The funny thing is other people stating they are open minded, but at the same time dismissing completely other personal experiences millions of people are familiar for ages, some very well documented already to the point of them having no doubt anymore and not even the word "supernatural" is used anymore, unless it's a TV show we are speaking about. Bear in mind I am not referring to believing in a line written in a book, I am talking practical field experiences. Routine.

Now look how "complex" it is to do science. Aren't we all scientists after all?



> *What Do Scientists Do?*​
> *What Are Scientists?*
> 
> Scientists are people study things and try to figure out patterns or rules to explain how they work.
> ...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

@Sportsman 2.0 one guy saw Allah personally, one saw Jesus personally. How do I let myself trust in these personal experiences when they are in direct conflict of one another?

Someone can tell me that have personally experienced something if they want. Unless it was me, their word will never be enough to convince me. Some watch Dynamo and believe he is an absolute genius of a magician. That's just because they don't understand the trick and trust the word that he isn't using plants and fixing situations.

In Brain Games they went over the Super Natural. A test included everyone in a creepy house. One plant pretended to see something fly down the stairs. Due to the atmosphere and everything, non-plants actually also saw this thing fly down the stairs. They saw this...even though it never even happened. They were actually able to explain it in detail.

Personal experiences are not worthy to rely on cause the human brain isn't worthy to rely on. We are programmed with a need to make patterns and connections and when something is presented to you which you are unable to explain, sometimes you will use preconceived biases to explain it. My mum has seen a guardian angel in front of her and couldn't move. She was SURE of it. Perhaps coincidently, although likely not, she had never heard of sleep paralysis before.


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You should try harder without telling people you are trying yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you even get the meaning of the word 'trying'? Based on your reply here, i guess you don't.

And that last quote was in reference to accomplishing something that requires more work and effort, but i see you still have to learn to understand context.

So far, I've asked you questions and voiced my opinion regarding most of your posts in this thread, by which you've replied in an insecure, yet predictable way and make silly immature attempts at being offensive (i'll save you the suspense, you're not witty nor funny). 
I've come to the conclusion that replying or even reading any of your posts is an exercise in futility and it does not bring anything worthwhile to the table to discuss.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Really, what is the ado people make about it? Didn't we all make science either by replicating an experiment for exercise or to figure things on our own?
> 
> Important to know that the first thing before any research or experiment will be made, they have the *hypotheses*. But even before that, I would say we need something to trigger our curiosity and after that, we would come with hypotheses and then proceed with the experiments to check if that hypotheses or theory will be validated.
> 
> ...


No, actually "official" researchers HAVE studied the paranormal/ghosts/mediums/etc. The results across the board on every official and professionally done tests/experiements have proven *negative.* There is no evidence - anywhere - that the supernatural or paranormal is real. Every test has been *negative.*

There are entire groups of researches (not that many anymore, though, given the constant failure of finding anything worth while) who go to haunted houses and who go to haunted places and who participate in the "i can talk to your death father" medium people and all the other paranormal/supernatural claims people make or have "experienced", and not one, not a single one of them have had a piece of positive evidence showing that any of it is real. They actually have guides on how to be a medium, did you know that? Yeah, you can actually study this "power" and learn to trick people into giving you their money to connect them to their dead family member on a regular basis by just studying human emotion/signals/how the brain thinks. It's all very easily replicated by random people who take a couple hours out of their day to learn how to do it. 

In fact, there are a ton of amusing vidoes just on YouTube alone exposing professional "psychics" and mediums and any form of "I can talk to the dead", and when they are proven wrong and called out on their bullshit lies, they try super hard to get out of the conversation as quickly as possible to damage control and try to not let gullible people see through their bullshit. Here's an amusing one I just found randomly to use as an example:







It's embarrassing, really. Also very sad that "mediums" scam money out of emotional people who are distraught and looking for help anywhere/answers anywhere they can get them (obviously anywhere, in desperation mode). It's actually really, really sad that there are people who pretend to talk to the dead in order to jack money from desperate people. Scum of the earth, really. And before you claim "they are fake, they aren't real" or any sort of response similar to that, keep this in mind: there's no evidence - anywhere - that ANY "mediums" are real. None. Just "personal experience", you know, the same as that lady in the video above with her "personal experience". That "personal experience" sure goes a long way with scamming people out of money. 



ClydebankBlitz said:


> @Sportsman 2.0 one guy saw Allah personally, one saw Jesus personally. How do I let myself trust in these personal experiences when they are in direct conflict of one another?
> 
> Someone can tell me that have personally experienced something if they want. Unless it was me, their word will never be enough to convince me. Some watch Dynamo and believe he is an absolute genius of a magician. That's just because they don't understand the trick and trust the word that he isn't using plants and fixing situations.
> 
> ...


Exactly. The human mind and "experience" is so faulty it's not even funny. People see things in the dark that aren't there, we see faces in the clouds, our brain produces chemicals to make us feel things sometimes that we don't normally feel in day to day life. The human mind and "personal experience" is the very worst evidence anyone could ever use to try to prove anything.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> @Sportsman 2.0 one guy saw Allah personally, one saw Jesus personally. How do I let myself trust in these personal experiences when they are in direct conflict of one another?
> 
> Someone can tell me that have personally experienced something if they want. Unless it was me, their word will never be enough to convince me. Some watch Dynamo and believe he is an absolute genius of a magician. That's just because they don't understand the trick and trust the word that he isn't using plants and fixing situations.
> 
> ...


I trully understand and I don't expect to you to believe in One person who saw Jesus and another person who saw Allah. Actually, I always was sure about all the stablished religions contradictions. It was all part of my curiosity.

After all, with so many religions in the world, how all of them would be right? Impossible. That is the reason I am not referring to no religion in specific, but rather to simple communication with another dimension, something that is far more common than people coming to you and saying Jesus talked to them, I mean, literally.

Communication in the past required the two parties to be in front if each other. Further on, we could have communications via telegraghs, later on, full wired conversations and today, we have millions of invisible conversations passing through us, as we speak via mobile signals, Sat Com, radio freequencies. It is all about technology or lack of it.

Just like some radios can pick signals other units can't, it happen the same with people. Sensitive people is a reality. 
It is a general thing I am talking about, not a religious thing.

One party who never studied a subject for whatever reason can't make credible statements regarding other people studies. It's just like calling an avionics explert to make a statement about a hydraulic leak.



oordeel said:


> Do you even get the meaning of the word 'trying'? Based on your reply here, i guess you don't.
> 
> *And that last quote was in reference to accomplishing something that requires more work and effort*, but i see you still have to learn to understand context.
> 
> ...


What do you know about the work and effort necessary to achieve any of those professions, man? Really? What do you know about doing what I do? You are just vomiting and trolling. You don't know the very first thing. You are so OFF it is just embarrassing.
As embarrassing as trying to use other people background you don't have to say they are right or wrong.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> *No, actually "official" researchers HAVE studied the paranormal/ghosts/mediums/etc. The results across the board on every official and professionally done tests/experiements have proven negative. *There is no evidence - anywhere - that the supernatural or paranormal is real. Every test has been *negative.*
> 
> There are entire groups of researches (not that many anymore, though, given the constant failure of finding anything worth while) who go to haunted houses and who go to haunted places and who participate in the "i can talk to your death father" medium people and all the other paranormal/supernatural claims people make or have "experienced", and not one, not a single one of them have had a piece of positive evidence showing that any of it is real. They actually have guides on how to be a medium, did you know that? Yeah, you can actually study this "power" and learn to trick people into giving you their money to connect them to their dead family member on a regular basis by just studying human emotion/signals/how the brain thinks. It's all very easily replicated by random people who take a couple hours out of their day to learn how to do it.
> 
> ...


We have past 30 pages in this thread, I think it would be a good moment you post the links of these "official scientific researches" that state the so called paranormal do not exist.

And regarding the mediums charlatans, there's no "oh, before you claim they are charlatans", they ARE charlatans. And also you want to confuse the subject bringing they are scum, as they are and talking out of your * about one person being able to become a medium just by reading a crook book. You are just adding noise to the discussion.

My objective here is not to convince hard heads, but I am sure many people in this board are reading all sides and taking their own conclusions, even if it means go ahead and research on their on.

The tabu is so big and people feel so afraid of being mocked, they become introspective about this subject, even though they would like to have explanations to things that happen to them, but they are afraid of who they may contact, because normally most doctors will lable them as lunatics and prescribe medicines even though they are perfectly normal people.

And this mind tricks and illusions are very true and real, but don't tell the whole story. I am not speaking about "thinking of seeing something". Sensitive people can see spirits clear as day.
Since I don't have no attachments to no political or religious party, I never hold back my experiences in my life, so it's not in an anonymous forum I'll be afraid of speaking of them.

I have two sensitive daughters and they see spirits since very little. They see the same things together. They are normal kids with great circle of friendship, doing good in school and all.

My wife is a full medium, with full capability of interaction and never worked with that at all. As I told you, proper mediums over here don't charge a dime. ZERO. As opposed to the crooks you keep bringing, proper mediums over here have nothing but fraternity in mind. Help other people is the main goal.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

30 pages of needless arguing. If only people would stop being so dumb and realize nay, it is not religion that is at fault, it's bankers and conglomerates that produce inefficient war machines designed to bring in more $$$ that are holding back human progress. That's all it is, religion is one giant smokescreen for all you fodder to argue about while a few hundred bankers are trying to screw us all over, every single day.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Oh, mine. I just realized why so many people here jump when they hear the word "medium". They work as "professional psychs" in US and other places. Hundreds, thousands, charging money for their "services". Looking as non trustworthy as the Pastor in this OP. Seas of crooks, making shows, appearing in magazine covers. Man...

It is very simple. This should never be a business. Never. If someone is charging money for this, it's wrong. Period.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> It is very simple. This should never be a business. Never. If someone is charging money for this, it's wrong. Period.


I really don't have an opinion one way or another on the supernatural. I had some strange things that happened when I was a kid, around 7 or 8 years old. I have always attributed it to me being a kid, but who knows. Regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject, why would it be wrong to charge someone for this service, if for arguments sake, we say it's real. If you are actually providing the service you claim, then I see no issue with it. 

Not that I want to get this thread off track or anything.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I trully understand and I don't expect to you to believe in One person who saw Jesus and another person who saw Allah. Actually, I always was sure about all the stablished religions contradictions. It was all part of my curiosity.
> 
> After all, with so many religions in the world, how all of them would be right? Impossible. That is the reason I am not referring to no religion in specific, but rather to simple communication with another dimension, something that is far more common than people coming to you and saying Jesus talked to them, I mean, literally.
> 
> ...


I'm cool with the 'concept' of all of this. Although again it's the belief in a completely theoretical idea which nothing points towards, there are plenty of completely theoretical ideas which eventually gained some traction.

There are a few holes in the technology angle but really, it's not a million miles from space travel. The idea to get to other galaxies in space right now is one that essentially seems like it may never be possible, and every possible idea couldn't be more theoretical. Before M.C. jumps down my throat, yes, I'm aware that other galaxies aren't theoretical and can already be studied and learned about, but they weren't always you know?

The only problem for me is the idea of using things you and your wife has seen or done, or things others have seen or done, as evidence. I could tell you that Jesus is coming to me right now and telling me your point of view is lies, but that holds no weight what so ever you know?

The only other problem is if you tell someone what is and what isn't happening. We talked before but it's blind faith as there is not a scrap or iota of evidence to point to it being correct. Could it be? It absolutely could, and again I've not even talked about where I stand on the subject personally. But to believe in other dimensions which harness the souls of humanity, to believe in ghosts and spirits, to believe in heaven and hell, to believe in possessions, ouiji boards, mediums, seances and whatever else one wants to believe in, you simply MUST acknowledge that you just "believe" in this, not that it's true. It is completely theoretical to it's very core.

Here's another one you'll like from Brain Games. Ouiji board. People were being made to believe they have a connection to a spirit. Their own hand on the glass, and they genuinely answer the questions and spell out words. Proof of the other realm right? Well, when blindfolded, not a single person could spell out a word. How is that? Surely the spirit is simply guiding the hand and the spirit itself has lost no ability to spell? This isn't me trying to disprove the ouiji board or other realm spirits, this is me trying to explain that personal experience, even something as blatant as your body moving a glass which you have no control what so ever over, can be an absolute figment of the imagination. What one sees to be the undisputed and absolute truth can be completely written by the mind as an explanation for a sequence of events which they have no answers for. Poltragists have existed 100%....on sites where bizarre anomalies with magnet fields have happened. If my couch starts floating I'm gonna be SURE ghosts exist...even if that isn't specifically the truth behind this happening. As a result, without concrete studies by accredited scientists and whatever else it takes to prove theories and happenings right or wrong, we have to admit that our position we stand in is blind faith.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

rabakill said:


> 30 pages of needless arguing. If only people would stop being so dumb and realize nay, it is not religion that is at fault, it's bankers and conglomerates that produce inefficient war machines designed to bring in more $$$ that are holding back human progress. That's all it is, religion is one giant smokescreen for all you fodder to argue about while a few hundred bankers are trying to screw us all over, every single day.


"Don't argue about that thing, argue about the thing I'm interested in!"


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> We have past 30 pages in this thread, I think it would be a good moment you post the links of these "official scientific researches" that state the so called paranormal do not exist.
> 
> And regarding the mediums charlatans, there's no "oh, before you claim they are charlatans", they ARE charlatans. And also you want to confuse the subject bringing they are scum, as they are and talking out of your * about one person being able to become a medium just by reading a crook book. You are just adding noise to the discussion.
> 
> ...


Nothing can prove that paranormal doesn't exist, the same way nothing can prove that I don't have a talking invisible dragon that lives on my shoulder in his invisible shoulder-cave. You do realize that the burden of proof is on the ones making the wild claim, and the wild claim is that people can speak or see dead souls. The proper stance to someone making a wild claim is - provide your evidence for this wild claim, or GTFO. If no sufficient evidence is brought forth, it is thrown to the wayside until proper, accurate evidence is provided. So, if you want "research" that shows paranormal "does not exist", you won't find it, but what you will find is research/tests that has never found any evidence at all for it, and in fact found a lot of misinformation, lies, con artists and straight up crazy people. 

As for your wife being a medium and your kids being sensitive, again, there's zero evidence for either. If there was, the world would be going crazy with the knowledge that dead people were still hanging around instead of the idea being mocked and belittled. I have a good friend that straight up believes that he has been abducted by aliens, and he has a mark on his right outer thigh, and he legit believes that the mark was given to him during his alien examination. He's a good guy, nice guy, smart guy, I get along with him well, but his "alien experience" is wacky and crazy. His "personal experience" is just straight up nonsense. I love the dude, but you got to tell it like it is. 

On another note, I don't think there's anything fruitful to get from going on any further with this. I mean literally it's people saying "wild and crazy claims require basic, everyday evidence to take seriously" and then you got people saying "nah, it's just a personal experience, you can't test it and there's no evidence for it" and then it just goes back to "okay, it's silly and nonsense then" and then back and forth and back and forth.

It's getting boring from all sides at this point and I might lock the thread soon, just cause I think everyone has said everything they need to say and now it's just getting tiresome and drawn out.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

DonRifle said:


>


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Term said:


> I really don't have an opinion one way or another on the supernatural. I had some strange things that happened when I was a kid, around 7 or 8 years old. I have always attributed it to me being a kid, but who knows. Regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject, why would it be wrong to charge someone for this service, if for arguments sake, we say it's real. If you are actually providing the service you claim, then I see no issue with it.
> 
> Not that I want to get this thread off track or anything.


Most kids are sensitives. Majority of people lose this ability when growing older, but some maintain it throughout life and even it can become stronger.

It is a natural thing that happens to many people and it's nice to hear you stepping forward, but as you see, it's the lack of information, and worse, the society pressure that keep people from looking for answers for these phenomenons.

There's nothing more tragic than you hear from a child who trusts you that she sees someone, talks to someone, and parents, instead of helping her to understand, would say "sorry kid, there's no scientific evidence what you are telling me is true. Back to your room, you're grounded for telling lies..."

Or because of the same pressure of these extremists, they will just label the kid sick in his/her mind and with the help of doctors, they will either ministrate heavy medicine to the poor child if not putting he/she int a mental institution, even though that's a perfectly sound child.



M.C said:


> *Nothing can prove that paranormal doesn't exist,* the same way nothing can prove that I don't have a talking invisible dragon that lives on my shoulder in his invisible shoulder-cave. You do realize that the burden of proof is on the ones making the wild claim, and the wild claim is that people can speak or see dead souls. The proper stance to someone making a wild claim is - provide your evidence for this wild claim, or GTFO. If no sufficient evidence is brought forth, it is thrown to the wayside until proper, accurate evidence is provided. So, if you want "research" that shows paranormal "does not exist", you won't find it, but what you will find is research/tests that has never found any evidence at all for it, and in fact found a lot of misinformation, lies, con artists and straight up crazy people.
> 
> As for your wife being a medium and your kids being sensitive, again, there's zero evidence for either. If there was, the world would be going crazy with the knowledge that dead people were still hanging around instead of the idea being mocked and belittled. I have a good friend that straight up believes that he has been abducted by aliens, and he has a mark on his right outer thigh, and he legit believes that the mark was given to him during his alien examination. He's a good guy, nice guy, smart guy, I get along with him well, but his "alien experience" is wacky and crazy. His "personal experience" is just straight up nonsense. I love the dude, but you got to tell it like it is.
> 
> ...


So, you don't have a link of the said official investigation made by scientists stating there's nothing beyond? Well, as I have showed few pages ago, there was a scientific research made by a group of people who concluded ther is life after death and that communication with spirits is possible and the results were published and are currently used by millions of people. 

Looks like you value more the old tabus enforced by governs and religions rather than the scientific experiments made by people who were once skeptics like you.

And you are thinking about closing the thread because you are bored about it? How about you stop visiting it instead? It's one of the most active threads on a very touchy subject and I woud say people are interacting rather well. But yeah, by all means. Close the thread because you disagree with what it's been talked about here. Isn't that the same governs and major religions and puppet scientists do to shut down inconvenient hypotheses? Lock it away?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

*People like to hear from Scientists...*



> *GERMAN SCIENTISTS PROVE THERE'S LIFE AFTER DEATH*
> 
> Berlin | A team of psychologists and medical doctors associated with the Technische Universität of Berlin, have announced this morning that they had proven by clinical experimentation, the existence of some form of life after death. This astonishing announcement is based on the conclusions of a study using a new type of medically supervised near-death experiences, that allow patients to be clinically dead for almost 20 minutes before being brought back to life.
> 
> ...


http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/german-scientists-prove-there-is-life-after-death/


> *First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study*
> 
> Southampton University scientists have found evidence that awareness can continue for at least several minutes after clinical death which was previously thought impossible.
> 
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Communication in the past required the two parties to be in front if each other. Further on, we could have communications via telegraghs, later on, full wired conversations and today, we have millions of invisible conversations passing through us, as we speak via mobile signals, Sat Com, radio freequencies. It is all about technology or lack of it.
> 
> Just like some radios can pick signals other units can't, it happen the same with people. Sensitive people is a reality.
> It is a general thing I am talking about, not a religious thing.


The difference is, when I talk on the phone with a person I can't see, I can just open the door, go to the next room and thereby prove the person exists, or go out of the house over the street to the next house and prove the person is there, or get in the car drive to the next city and prove the person is there or get in the plane fly around the world and prove the person is there. And it is not only I who can prove it, if you doubt you can open the door, go over the street, get in the car or get in the plane and prove the person is there. And if we the you and me are biased, we can have a third neutral person open the door, go over the street, get in the car or get in the plane. The experiment is repeatable independently of who makes what claim and the result is the same.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I have two sensitive daughters and they see spirits since very little. They see the same things together. They are normal kids with great circle of friendship, doing good in school and all.


Two friends of mine are (non-identical) twins. They grew up together, living in the same room together until after finishing high-school. Of course they were/are very sensible for each other. When playing those games with them where your team mates have to guess a term but you are not allowed to say certain words, you couldn't have them in the same team because they would always win. They could say some seemingly completely random words that apparently didn't have any connection with the term to guess, but they were able to make the same association and thereby come to the term to guess. No magic involved, just being sensible for each other and sharing similar experiences in their life.



M.C said:


> It's getting boring from all sides at this point and I might lock the thread soon, just cause I think everyone has said everything they need to say and now it's just getting tiresome and drawn out.


Why¿ If you think it's boring, don't read in the thread. People are not insulting each other here, they just discuss different opinions. It's not like this thread blocks away current super interesting MMA discussions. At least it makes people being active on this board which unfortunately has become less and less active during the last years. So no need to close it. If people have the feeling that it's all said and done, it will die on its own.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> The difference is, when I talk on the phone with a person I can't see, I can just open the door, go to the next room and thereby prove the person exists, or go out of the house over the street to the next house and prove the person is there, or get in the car drive to the next city and prove the person is there or get in the plane fly around the world and prove the person is there. And it is not only I who can prove it, if you doubt you can open the door, go over the street, get in the car or get in the plane and prove the person is there. And if we the you and me are biased, we can have a third neutral person open the door, go over the street, get in the car or get in the plane. The experiment is repeatable independently of who makes what claim and the result is the same.


Point is, countless people don't need proof on something they experience routinely, most just need explanation, but the prejudice imposed by society is so great many live as cast away individuals.

The example I used regarding the communication evolution was merely to point there are countless things that few years ago we wouldn't even think they were possible, but now, they are a reality that would be considered rather fantastic to think about in the past.



Voiceless said:


> Two friends of mine are (non-identical) twins. They grew up together, living in the same room together until after finishing high-school. Of course they were/are very sensible for each other. When playing those games with them where your team mates have to guess a term but you are not allowed to say certain words, you couldn't have them in the same team because they would always win. They could say some seemingly completely random words that apparently didn't have any connection with the term to guess, but they were able to make the same association and thereby come to the term to guess. No magic involved, just being sensible for each other and sharing similar experiences in their life.


Hum, I am aware of this. I know this connection between twins is real thing. But do you have any scientific explanation for this? I mean, it's just your word and personal experiences don't count much around here.  Sure I am kidding.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Point is, countless people don't need proof on something they experience routinely, most just need explanation, but the prejudice imposed by society is so great many live as cast away individuals.
> 
> The example I used regarding the communication evolution was merely to point there are countless things that few years ago we wouldn't even think they were possible, but now, they are a reality that would be considered rather fantastic to think about in the past.


NO scientist claims that we already know everything and that there aren't phenomena we haven't seen yet. It's just, if someone makes a claim about something, it should be provable under scientific conditions.

Lets take your radio. No one knew of electromagnetic waves before, some physicist obverves a phenomenon, builds a theory around it and makes experimental research, finally he comes up with a set up that can send modulated electromagnetic waves and receive them on the other end (transmitter - radio). He makes his claim public. People are in doubt, because such thing has never been there. As soon as he makes the construction manual for his set up public, anyone in the world could potentially rebuild his set up and come to the same results. A lot of other physicists did in the laboratory, they came up with the same results and any doubt was gone, his claim was proven correct. 
This regularly happens with new physical discoveries, theories and claims. It never happens with supernatural claims.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> NO scientist claims that we already know everything and that there aren't phenomena we haven't seen yet. It's just, if someone makes a claim about something, it should be provable under scientific conditions.
> 
> Lets take your radio. No one knew of electromagnetic waves before, some physicist obverves a phenomenon, builds a theory around it and makes experimental research, finally he comes up with a set up that can send modulated electromagnetic waves and receive them on the other end (transmitter - radio). He makes his claim public. People are in doubt, because such thing has never been there. As soon as he makes the construction manual for his set up public, anyone in the world could potentially rebuild his set up and come to the same results. A lot of other physicists did in the laboratory, they came up with the same results and any doubt was gone, his claim was proven correct.
> This regularly happens with new physical discoveries, theories and claims. It never happens with supernatural claims.


Fixed for you. :thumbsup:



Voiceless said:


> NO scientist claims that we already know everything and that there aren't phenomena we haven't seen yet. It's just, if someone makes a claim about something, it should be provable under scientific conditions, which was already, but it won't happen again, because puppets scientists will make sure they'll never make a experiment like that again, but focus on the non existence whenever making a statement anyway, rather than admitting they are not testing nothing because they only test what their bosses want them to test and Allan Kardec experiments go against their best interests.
> 
> Lets take your spiritual/after life. No one knew of spirits contact/after life before, some scientist acknowledges the phenomenons, builds a theory around it and makes experimental research, by compiling over one thousand questions concerning the nature and mechanisms of spirit communications, the reasons for human life on earth, and aspects of the spiritual realm. He asked those questions to ten mediums, all purportedly unknown to each other, and documented their responses.
> 
> ...


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

> ...because puppets scientists ...


Could you please keep that bogeyman away¿

The beauty of science is that it's like open source. Every single person on this planet can potentially check its methods, use them and repeat experiments to check claims. There have always throughout history been scientists that swam against the mainstream and when they had proof of their claims and theories scientific community finally acknowledged and rewrote their models. That's how we got classical mechanics, special relativity, quantum mechanics etc. The fundamental principal of science is that you use your models and theories only until you find better ones that either expand or replace the old ones. Scientists are happy to find new models and explanations. That's the big difference to religion.

Do you really think there is a conspiracy binding scientists from the US & Western henchmen states, Russia, China, Iran, India, North Korea, random African states etc. together to follow a common agenda¿ Really¿

There are many conspiracy theories out there that the US space program wasn't on the moon with the Apollo 11 mission and Armstrong never walked on the moon. The best indicator that it was not a big sham is that the Russians never denied the success of that mission. It would have been one of the biggest propaganda victories in the cold war for the Russians to expose the US space program as fraud, but they didn't because they could get the same data as the US and see that it was real.

There are many religions and belief systems prevalent in parts of the world that would cope pretty well with all that spritual stuff (i.e. Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Ancester worshipping, Animism, Voodoo etc.) without it being any threat to established belief systems, yet even scientists from these regions of the world couldn't find any proof for spiritual claims.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> Could you please keep that bogeyman away¿





Voiceless said:


> The beauty of science is that it's like open source. Every single person on this planet can potentially check its methods, use them and repeat experiments to check claims.


The beauty is every person can potentially create their own methods. But that is beside the point, because that were scientific experiments that proved the after life, you just chose to ignore them.


Voiceless said:


> There have always throughout history been scientists that swam against the mainstream and when they had proof of their claims and theories scientific community finally acknowledged and rewrote their models.


Only if that would please this said "Scientific Community" and those who fund them.


Voiceless said:


> Do you really think there is a conspiracy binding scientists from the US & Western henchmen states, Russia, China, Iran, India, North Korea, random African states etc. together to follow a common agenda¿ Really¿


There's no conspiracy. Conspiracies require money. A simple discrimination is enough and has been working pretty good. 


Voiceless said:


> There are many conspiracy theories out there that the US space program wasn't on the moon with the Apollo 11 mission and Armstrong never walked on the moon. The best indicator that it was not a big sham is that the Russians never denied the success of that mission. It would have been one of the biggest propaganda victories in the cold war for the Russians to expose the US space program as fraud, but they didn't because they could get the same data as the US and see that it was real.


Not relevant, since it's not a conspiracy per se.


Voiceless said:


> There are many religions and belief systems prevalent in parts of the world that would cope pretty well with all that spritual stuff (i.e. Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Ancester worshipping, Animism, Voodoo etc.) without it being any threat to established belief systems, yet even scientists from these regions of the world couldn't find any proof for spiritual claims.


I have already published on this thread three different sources of studies made by scientists that concluded there's life after the death of the body. The body is what expires. But we only have the claims of some other scientists who state they have no proof, although we don't have any detail of their experiments, only some sensationalist TV shows busting some crooks live aiming for attention and money.

So, beside my personal experience, I think at least three scientific experiments attesting life after death beat those inconclusive studies you've been talking about.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I have already published on this thread three different sources of studies made by scientists that concluded there's life after the death of the body.


Well, problem is, there is no Dr Berthold Ackermann at Technische Universtät Berlin and you won't find anything about his "discoveries" on any German newspaper.

But if you think worldnewsdailyreport.com is a credible source for research on life after death (your link), then you might as well find some truth in the other articles of that journal...



MAN KEEPS RECEIVING INSULTS FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW 10 YEARS AFTER HER DEATH

But at least with those after life experiences, we get some more information about god:
CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO DIED FOR 48 MINUTES CLAIMS THAT GOD IS A WOMAN

Also fitting to our topic: UTAH: MAN IS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING WHILE MASTURBATING TO BIBLE

USA: RANCHER SHOOTS DOWN UFO NEAR AREA 51

GEORGE BUSH SENIOR ON UFOS: “AMERICANS CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”

No wonder, because:

“I FELL PREGNANT DURING AN ALIEN ABDUCTION” CLAIMS MICHIGAN WOMAN

Virgin birth is quite a religious topic:
TEXAS: 14-YEAR OLD VIRGIN FALLS PREGNANT AFTER FLU SHOT

RUSSIA: MAN GROWS GILLS AFTER HAVING FISH GENES ADDED TO HIS DNA

FLORIDA: 16 GIRLS FOUND PREGNANT AFTER TEENAGER EJACULATES IN POOL

MEXICO: CHUPACABRA ATTACKS LINKED TO GLOBAL WARMING, WARN EXPERTS

...and of course:

WIKILEAKS DOCUMENTS REVEAL APOLLO PROGRAM WAS A FRAUD, MOON LANDINGS NEVER HAPPENED

I did enjoy the discovery of that newspaper though, so thanks a lot :thumb02:


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> Well, problem is, there is no Dr Berthold Ackermann at Technische Universtät Berlin and you won't find anything about his "discoveries" on any German newspaper.
> 
> But if you think worldnewsdailyreport.com is a credible source for research on life after death (your link), then you might as well find some truth in the other articles of that journal...
> 
> ...


I knew I shouldn't have trusted in a German scientist. Even a fake one. :laugh:

That makes the placar back to 2-0 for me then, right? But wait...overtime...



> *Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist*
> 
> Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion
> He said life creates the universe, and not the other way round
> ...


Robert Lanza's website:
http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/

Well, I already know for a fact there's life after death, now we just wait until there are enough studies with three stamps from this "Scientific Community" each to convince you guys.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I knew I shouldn't have trusted in a German scientist. Even a fake one. :laugh:


Of course, two world wars and cars that produce more exhaust fume than the company claims, you should have known that you can't trust anyone from Germany. :thumb02:



> That makes the placar back to 2-0 for me then, right?


Nope, you came up with people who have theories (which is fine and not to be laughed at), but they don't have given proof (not your fault, the newspapers used the term "prove" inaccurately). 



> But wait...overtime...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What he has is a (rather philosophical) theory and interpretation for the (long known) double-slit phenomenon, not a proof. But for that phenomenon, there are many theories and interpretations.



Victor Stenger (Physicist said:


> *Life After Death: Examining the Evidence*
> 
> I have not read every published report on the types of phenomena used to claim evidence that humans contain some immaterial component that makes our immortality possible. There are thousands of such reports. But I have looked at many, the ones said to be the best. *None--not a single one--stands up under the same scrutiny that is applied in any science whenever an extraordinary claim is presented*.
> 
> ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/life-after-death-examinin_b_1428710.html


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> *Nope, you came up with people who have theories* (which is fine and not to be laughed at), but they don't have given proof (not your fault, the newspapers used the term "prove" inaccurately).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nop. Allan Kardec has made a full experiment and went ahead and published his results. The theories were what triggered his scientific curiosity, though. Nobody did a study as deep as his.

Dr. Parnia experiments also started with theories, but he effectively collected more evidences than one could wish to call the results a success. I concede about Robert Lanza's being a theory, but come on, that guy knows shit, he just didn't prove that yet.

Anyway, I would say this...

*"One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room."
“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for."*

...trumps someone transitioning from the earth to "elsewhere" during a cardiac arrest remembering to read a piece of paper left who knows where. Come on, is that for real?

I wonder the conversation:
DR - "Hey man while we were applying electrical shocks on you, did you note a piece of paper over that table and by any chance do you remember what was written there? " :laugh:

Sorry, that one is totally crazy, man. I think it is rather plausible to ask the person what they remember and check with the facts, like Dr. Parnia did.

Just because scientists did not officially prove a person is connecting to the outer world it doesn't mean that is not happening, only means they did not prove that yet. Remember how many years scientists couldn't figure out how a fvcking bee could fly? But yet they did fly. :thumb02:


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Nop. Allan Kardec has made a full experiment and went ahead and published his results. The theories were what triggered his scientific curiosity, though. Nobody did a study as deep as his.
> 
> Dr. Parnia experiments also started with theories, but he effectively collected more evidences than one could wish to call the results a success. I concede about Robert Lanza's being a theory, but come on, that guy knows shit, he just didn't prove that yet.


There are many people who know a lot of shit and come up with cool theories, but until they find a way to prove them, they are exactly that - theories.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Anyway, I would say this...
> 
> *"One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room."
> “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for."*
> ...


Parnia did not come up with the conclusion that people had after life experiences:



Dr Sam Parnia said:


> *Process of death*
> 
> He said: "Contrary to popular perception, death is not a specific moment.
> "It is a process that begins when the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working and the brain ceases functioning - a medical condition termed cardiac arrest.
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7621608.stm

And Parnia actually DID the above mentioned set up in his AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) study to see whether the out of body floating to the ceiling individuals could see those pictures you only would be able to see if you indeed floated above your body.



> In 2001, Sam Parnia and colleagues investigated out-of-body claims by placing figures on suspended boards facing the ceiling, not visible from the floor. Parnia wrote "anybody who claimed to have left their body and be near the ceiling during resuscitation attempts would be expected to identify those targets. If, however, such perceptions are psychological, then one would obviously not expect the targets to be identified."[115] The philosopher Keith Augustine, who examined Parnia's study, has written that *all target identification experiments have produced negative results*.[114] Psychologist Chris French wrote regarding the study "unfortunately, and somewhat atypically, none of the survivors in this sample experienced an OBE."[62]
> 
> In the autumn of 2008, 25 UK and US hospitals began participation in a study, coordinated by Sam Parnia and Southampton University known as the *AWARE study* (AWAreness during REsuscitation). Following on from the work of Pim van Lommel in the Netherlands, the study aims to examine near-death experiences in 1,500 cardiac arrest survivors and so determine whether people without a heartbeat or brain activity can have documentable out-of-body experiences.[116] As part of the study Parnia and colleagues have investigated out of body claims by using hidden targets placed on shelves that could only be seen from above.[116] *Parnia has written "if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories"*.[116]
> 
> In 2014 Parnia issued a statement indicating that the first phase of the project has been completed and the results are undergoing peer review for publication in a medical journal.[117] *No subjects saw the images mounted out of sight* according to Parnia's early report of the results of the study at an American Heart Association meeting in November 2013. Only two out of the 152 patients reported any visual experiences, and one of them described events that could be verified.[118]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Afterlife_claims_and_skeptical_responses

further: http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#experiments

So, people that had those supposedly out-of-body experiences described they were leaving their body and floating above it close to the ceiling. They were perfectly able to describe what they had seen, except for the pictures for which to see them, in contrast to anything else they described, you actually would have had to be a position above their body. In other words, they couldn't remember the only thing in the room that would 100% prove they were out of their body, oh, what a coincidence ...



> Just because scientists did not officially prove a person is connecting to the outer world it doesn't mean that is not happening, only means they did not prove that yet.


Again, that's not how scientific proof works. Of course, the lack of proof doesn't mean it is not happening, because you can't prove the non-existence (remember the invisible pink Unicorn¿) But it certainly does NOT mean it IS happening.



> Remember how many years scientists couldn't figure out how a fvcking bee could fly? But yet they did fly. :thumb02:


Again, first of all, there is a difference between a proven phenomenon and the theoretical explanation for it. Secondly, the phenomenon of a bee flying can be reproduced in any laboratory of the world. Speaking to the dead can't.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman, are you under the impression that the afterlife has been proved and just no one knows about it or something?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> Parnia did not come up with the conclusion that people had after life experiences:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7621608.stm
> 
> And Parnia actually DID the above mentioned set up in his AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) study to see whether the out of body floating to the ceiling individuals could see those pictures you only would be able to see if you indeed floated above your body.
> ...


Using the fact a person did not describe a specific object or written message when that person described other stuff, from another angle in a room that person probably entered uncounscious already *is a theory*.

You are picking and chosing the lines from Parnia to suit your pre-conception, when his very last statements were:



> “Many people have assumed that these were hallucinations or illusions but they do seem to corresponded to actual events.
> “And a higher proportion of people may have vivid death experiences, but do not recall them due to the effects of brain injury or sedative drugs on memory circuits.
> 
> *"There is some very good evidence here that these experiences are actually happening after people have medically died."*


The scientist says that is evidence. And even though this is an open study, it surprises me people still resist even to what scientists are trying to to. 



Voiceless said:


> Again, first of all, there is a difference between a proven phenomenon and the theoretical explanation for it. Secondly, the phenomenon of a bee flying can be reproduced in any laboratory of the world. *Speaking to the dead can't.*


It would be impossible to speak to the dead, because they would be dead, but actually only the body has died. The physical transmitter is useless, that's all.

The world and the universe do not exist because of scientists. Scientists act nothing more than the American military dissecting that russian Mig that crossed their borders with a deserted pilot. They disassemble things to learn how they work. Only that.

Now, how can someone have a higher percentage of belief there's nothing else beyond based on these newbies studies about physical molecules is beyond me.

For me, it's just like the bee flying. It's just a normal flow of life and energy. They've said it was impossible once, but the bee kept flying.



ClydebankBlitz said:


> Sportsman, are you under the impression that the afterlife has been proved and just no one knows about it or something?


Absolutely not. Many people know about it already.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Sportsman, are you under the impression that the afterlife has been proved and just no one knows about it or something?


Plenty of people know about it, those who have had a near death experience and describe their experience as more lucid and real than their actual physical life. Blind people who have been able to see with crystal clear vision after they have "died".

There are thousands of people all over the world with the same experiences, first hand experience is all the proof you need.

If you have experienced something and you know it's true, you don't need to wait for some authority figure to verify it for you, you are your own authority.






That's just one example of countless cases. Perhaps look into the wealth of NDE research and evidence for life existing after physical death. It becomes pretty damn obvious that the body is just a physical vessel for the soul/consciousness/spirit to experience this reality, the same way a television is just a vessel for broadcasting the signal. If you smash a television to pieces, the physical television is "dead" but the signal still remains, waiting to tune into another television.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

LizaG said:


> Oh my! Some of you people on your high horses get awfully sassy


Seventeen hands..:sarcastic07:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Lmfao this is all too much now. Figuring out that the general trio of MMAForum crazies also believe in undeniable evidence of spirits and the afterlife....that's really the time to back out. All I can say is thank god these guys were born in their respective countries and not Iran because these are the type of blokes who leave a massive crater in the side of a building.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Plenty of people know about it, those who have had a near death experience and describe their experience as more lucid and real than their actual physical life. Blind people who have been able to see with crystal clear vision after they have "died".
> 
> There are thousands of people all over the world with the same experiences, first hand experience is all the proof you need.
> 
> ...


Don't you ever have extremely lucid dreams? I don't see how a guy in a coma who has various chemicals coursing through his veins, who is being fed through a drip causing further chemical reactions in his body and affecting his dreams can claim any thoughts he has while asleep are anything other then a dream. 
I recently stopped smoking weed in the last 3 months and have had the most lucid dreams ever. Seeing and having conversations with people from my childhood that are incredibly clear and stay with me for days after. 
The brains has various chemicals released into it depending on whats happening to someone. Near death, coma, whatever, when people are out cold crazy shit is going on in their brain due to whatever chemical the body is producing in reaction to the situation.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Lmfao this is all too much now. Figuring out that the general trio of MMAForum crazies also believe in undeniable evidence of spirits and the afterlife....that's really the time to back out. All I can say is thank god these guys were born in their respective countries and not Iran because these are the type of blokes who leave a massive crater in the side of a building.


I see you putting an effort to see this thread being closed now. 

You see why it is difficult to have an argument with you? And how many times it's been tried? You are as much extremist as the terrorists you just mentioned. Can't accept people think different than you, then you come insulting people by default.

If you cared to read the works of Allan Kardec you would see it's nothing but harmony, fraternity, mutual respect and love.

What a low level bait this post was, even for you.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Btw, I just had a personal experience with God and he told me that eating meat is great and should be encouraged, that there is no afterlife and that he's a massive Conor McGregor fan.



You have to believe me because it's my personal experience and that's somehow proof now.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Btw, I just had a personal experience with God and he told me that eating meat is great and should be encouraged, that there is no afterlife and that he's a massive Conor McGregor fan.
> .


Praise Jesus!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Praise Jesus!


He also told me Ireland is shite because your Buckfast bottles are black. Seriously, what's your problem Ireland?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> He also told me Ireland is shite because your Buckfast bottles are black. Seriously, what's your problem Ireland?


Don't be slagging Buckfast. If Granny wants to drink, its better that it looks like its blackcurrant juice so the grandkids don't think shes an alco!


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Don't you ever have extremely lucid dreams? I don't see how a guy in a coma who has various chemicals coursing through his veins, who is being fed through a drip causing further chemical reactions in his body and affecting his dreams can claim any thoughts he has while asleep are anything other then a dream.
> I recently stopped smoking weed in the last 3 months and have had the most lucid dreams ever. Seeing and having conversations with people from my childhood that are incredibly clear and stay with me for days after.
> The brains has various chemicals released into it depending on whats happening to someone. Near death, coma, whatever, when people are out cold crazy shit is going on in their brain due to whatever chemical the body is producing in reaction to the situation.


I just quit drinking, opiates, and weed. My dreams have been off the charts lucid, to the point where I have woken up nearly crying because I was certain I had relapsed. The crazy part is that it takes sometimes 5-10 minutes after I was woken up to convince myself the dream was not real. They feel astoundingly real, like no other dreams I have had.

The problem with a near death experience is that, as the name would suggest, the person does not actually die. Being clinically dead just means you are not breathing and your heart has stopped for a period of time. How do we know that the things people report during these episodes are not just the result of the brain still being partially functional and therefor we enter a lucid dreaming state? Furthermore, the notion of an afterlife is part of every culture, so it is something already within our memories that the brain can draw upon to create a lucid dream.

Here's an article that discusses exactly this concept:

http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html

I'm not saying I do not believe in an afterlife - I don't know what to believe. But this makes a lot of sense.

Oh, and the idea you can prove there are spirits or an afterlife is hilariously ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as saying you can prove there is no afterlife or spirits.



Voiceless said:


> But if you think worldnewsdailyreport.com is a credible source for research on life after death (your link), then you might as well find some truth in the other articles of that journal...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Ape City said:


> I just quit drinking, opiates, and weed.


Fair play to you. Thats some triumvate of kicking, your life is going to improve immeasurable I'd say.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Fair play to you. Thats some triumvate of kicking, your life is going to improve immeasurable I'd say.


Thanks man. It was the hardest thing and still is the hardest thing I have ever done. But I feel much better physically: I am losing weight, gaining muscle, and have immeasurably more energy. The mental stuff is just kicking my ass now. People who use a lot of drugs become immediate gratification seekers. Stress? Have a drink! Sad? Have a puff. Angry? Have all three! Learning to deal with life on life's terms without altering your brain is very hard after you have hard wired your brain for 10 years to simply escape with substances. One day at a time...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Don't be slagging Buckfast. If Granny wants to drink, its better that it looks like its blackcurrant juice so the grandkids don't think shes an alco!


I'm not slagging Buckfast, I'm slagging your Buckfast.

Actually, I was always told there was a difference. I thought it was bollocks. But I had my first "green bottle" of Buckfast the other day and it's legitimately a nice drink. In Ireland I drink it out of the good buzz and the stereotype but in Scotland it actually goes down smooth and has none of that "kick".

In addition to this, please inform your countrymen in Ireland to stop selling those €1 bottles of Irn Bru which are made in like Latvia or something. While the similarity is definitely commendable considering the muck attempt at a remake of Irn Bru there are out there, if it's not made from Scottish girders then it's an insult to Irn Bru.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I'm not slagging Buckfast, I'm slagging your Buckfast.
> 
> Actually, I was always told there was a difference. I thought it was bollocks. But I had my first "green bottle" of Buckfast the other day and it's legitimately a nice drink. In Ireland I drink it out of the good buzz and the stereotype but in Scotland it actually goes down smooth and has none of that "kick".
> 
> In addition to this, please inform your countrymen in Ireland to stop selling those €1 bottles of Irn Bru which are made in like Latvia or something. While the similarity is definitely commendable considering the muck attempt at a remake of Irn Bru there are out there, if it's not made from Scottish girders then it's an insult to Irn Bru.


When I lived in Scotland and first tried Bucky I thought it tasted like piss. To this day I still think it tastes like piss. I honestly do not get how a tonic wine became so popular. I can understand for it for kids, like how I used to drink 20/20 when I was a kid because its cheap and gets you hammered. But in Scotland, Buckfast is one for the generations - enjoyed by grandparents, parents and children on special occasions such as days of the week that end with the letter 'y'.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Spite said:


> When I lived in Scotland and first tried Bucky I thought it tasted like piss. To this day I still think it tastes like piss. I honestly do not get how a tonic wine became so popular. I can understand for it for kids, like how I used to drink 20/20 when I was a kid because its cheap and gets you hammered. But in Scotland, Buckfast is one for the generations - enjoyed by grandparents, parents and children on special occasions such as days of the week that end with the letter 'y'.


20/20 was my first ever drink. I loved it. Drank it again when I was about 14...horrendous. I believe it's still a bit popular but they might have banned it or something. Definitely not my cop of tea, too flowery for my liking.

Bucky isn't that nice. I'm a cheap beer drinker anyways. Dutch Gold, Bavaria, whatever it is, I'll probably enjoy it. Maybe it's the years of shite Bucky in Ireland, but it was really nice in Scotland.

Fun addition: My brother told me the old neighbourhood wasn't actually too bad and he hasn't seen too much trouble since returning. We leave his house 5 minutes after I arrive to get money from the bank and the literal first human we meet is a man being removed from a shop at 7pm, absolutely out of his face, clutching his almost empty bottle of Bucky. Classy.

(And yes, I'm taking away from the ridiculous conversation from before cause lmfao that shit was stupid).


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> 20/20 was my first ever drink. I loved it. Drank it again when I was about 14...horrendous. I believe it's still a bit popular but they might have banned it or something. Definitely not my cop of tea, too flowery for my liking.
> 
> Bucky isn't that nice. I'm a cheap beer drinker anyways. Dutch Gold, Bavaria, whatever it is, I'll probably enjoy it. Maybe it's the years of shite Bucky in Ireland, but it was really nice in Scotland.
> 
> ...


When I first moved to Ayr, literally every week in the local paper you'd hear of someone being arrested due to being violent after a bottle or 2 of Buckfast, usually using the empty bottle as weapon.

When I was there I went to the cinema with some of my new Scottish friends to see Braveheart. Honestly, it was one of the scariest moments of my life. Everyone in the cinema was drinking buckfast out of brown paper bags and cheering everytime and Englishman was killed (often). Of course I was the only Englishman in the cinema, I dared not move or speak because I was quite certain that if someone took me for being English I'd have become a Buckfast statistic.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Spite said:


> When I first moved to Ayr, literally every week in the local paper you'd hear of someone being arrested due to being violent after a bottle or 2 of Buckfast, usually using the empty bottle as weapon.
> 
> When I was there I went to the cinema with some of my new Scottish friends to see Braveheart. Honestly, it was one of the scariest moments of my life. Everyone in the cinema was drinking buckfast out of brown paper bags and cheering everytime and Englishman was killed (often). Of course I was the only Englishman in the cinema, I dared not move or speak because I was quite certain that if someone took me for being English I'd have become a Buckfast statistic.


These days 55% of that cinema are drinking a cup of tea with a saucer and cheering for Longshanks 

You ever held a Bucky bottle by the handle? That shit is a "comfortable weapon". I swear those Monks were getting hammered and rioting with each other cause they created a drink with such a level of alcohol and sugar to make people go mental...and created the bottle into the perfect weapon.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

DonRifle said:


> Don't you ever have extremely lucid dreams? I don't see how a guy in a coma who has various chemicals coursing through his veins, who is being fed through a drip causing further chemical reactions in his body and affecting his dreams can claim any thoughts he has while asleep are anything other then a dream.
> I recently stopped smoking weed in the last 3 months and have had the most lucid dreams ever. Seeing and having conversations with people from my childhood that are incredibly clear and stay with me for days after.
> The brains has various chemicals released into it depending on whats happening to someone. Near death, coma, whatever, when people are out cold crazy shit is going on in their brain due to whatever chemical the body is producing in reaction to the situation.


There's lucid dreaming and then there's floating above your body after being pronounced brain dead and being able to recall the exact conversation of nurses and doctors standing over your dead body. That's not dreaming. 

Blind people being able to see after being pronounced dead is not dreaming.

Like I said, his case is just one of many - plenty of others who hadn't been in a coma and doped up on drugs, who recall the exact same experience: Floating above body looking down on surgeons, going into a dark tunnel, emerging to a great white light, feeling overwhelming love and joy, meeting a spirit figure who plays your entire life back as if you were watching a film. Other stuff, some can recall more things.

Quite frankly I think it's arrogant to assume that someone who swears by their experience was "tripping" or in a dream. Again, the only proof you need really is your own experience and you know yourself whether something was real or not.

Also, lucid dreaming was "bunk" until 30 years ago when scientists "verified" it. That means all those who swore by having lucid dreams - meaning being able to control their dreams - were either liars or delusional. Just 30 years ago...



ClydebankBlitz said:


> Btw, I just had a personal experience with God and he told me that eating meat is great and should be encouraged, that there is no afterlife and that he's a massive Conor McGregor fan.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to believe me because it's my personal experience and that's somehow proof now.


If you had that experience (even though no one ever has, and countless people have experienced NDE) and you felt it was absolutely real, then why would you deny your own reality? Just because that experience was real to you btw, doesn't mean the information conveyed was true or accurate.

Instead of instantly dismissing things and not researching into the information provided like the ignorant moron you always are, how about you actually go and research these things for once? Read a book or two? Study the investigations?

Nah, too much hard work for ignorant Clyde.

Also, dissing Iran? Icing on the cake, another country you know NOTHING about and are completely ignorant towards. Did you know that Iran has peace museums celebrating the lack of warfare? Can you find me one of those in the UK?

Moron.

Edit: Also reported your post for blatant racism and complete ignorance towards one of the most peaceful countries in the world.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

@ReptilianSlayer, I'm only disagreeing because you claim this all to be "proof".

But what about someone who straight up had a conversation with Allah, one on one, and as a result murdered hundreds of people in a suicide bombing. You can sit this guy down, do any test you want, and he will be POSITIVE to his very core that it happened.

So what do you think then? It goes against your moral code, but it's the same thing as proving the afterlife by taking someone's word for it. If you can take the word and tests on that from a guy as proof of the afterlife, by the same logic then you would be proving extremist Islam factions to be correct too.



Really though any controversial analogy aside, personal experiences and first hand information are absolutely ridiculous to base scientific conclusion on because the human mind is one of the most fragile and weak things we have in many regards. Completely sane people are tricked every single day by their own mind, and really I don't think there is a credited scientist who specialises in the brain who would rely on someone's "personal experience" as proof of anything. I've already given you examples of scientific tests that are done to gauge how the human mind reacts. You simply can't trust the mind to present to you the actual information, especially when most people see these "spirits" when they are asleep, in the dark or in a coma. The only way you could convince me that spirits exist is if I can have a fully clear conversation with a spirit who appears to me right now and is open to chat...which never seems to happen. These spirits always seem to want to show up to you in like a mirror or something in the pitch black or after a head injury because logic.



ReptilianSlayer said:


> If you had that experience (even though no one ever has, and countless people have experienced NDE) and you felt it was absolutely real, then why would you deny your own reality? Just because that experience was real to you btw, doesn't mean the information conveyed was true or accurate.
> 
> Instead of instantly dismissing things and not researching into the information provided like the ignorant moron you always are, how about you actually go and research these things for once? Read a book or two? Study the investigations?
> 
> ...


Countless people have experienced a conversation with a deity who has told them the insights of the world. Want me to google a few examples?

People don't have their "own realities". There is reality, and there is fantasy. I'm not going to say which is which, but if someone claims their experience is "reality" beyond the confirmation of science then that isn't reality.

I've already given multiple examples of research done which proves the inability to trust the human mind due to deceptions we create in search of answers and patterns. But of course, as always, your idea of research is "shit that says what I want it to say". 

Futhermore, admins, am I allowed to report @Spite for his racist comments about Scotland? He insulted us, calling us alcoholics and people who are horrendous in cinemas. Scottish people amongst the most peaceful cinema goers in the world and his comments I find to be insulting. Can you deal with him? Cheers lads.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> @ReptilianSlayer, I'm only disagreeing because you claim this all to be "proof".
> 
> But what about someone who straight up had a conversation with Allah, one on one, and as a result murdered hundreds of people in a suicide bombing. You can sit this guy down, do any test you want, and he will be POSITIVE to his very core that it happened.
> 
> ...


Why do you keep bringing Islam into the conversation? If someone swore by that conversation and was absolutely convinced it was real and showed no signs of psychopathy or delusion (meaning he seemed like a normal bloke in his day-to-day life), perhaps some spirit did contact him? Does that mean the information he received by this spirit was accurate, moral or true? No. Does that justify his actions? No. If God told me to murder innocent people I'd tell him to fck off.

You keep going on about the mind, but if you looked into NDE you'd see that people that have been pronounced DEAD - meaning no BRAIN ACTIVITY and have come back to life sometimes as much as 30 mins later and recalled real experiences. How can it be a product of the mind if their brains are DEAD? The neuroscientist I referenced was in a coma and albeit, not dead, but THOUSANDS of people have been literally DEAD and then came back to life.

How do you explain people recalling conversations from doctors and nurses standing over their dead body? That verifies that something very real is occurring and clearly not a hallucination.

" An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs."

How can that possibly be a dream? When other people OUTSIDE of the dream (doctors) are verifying the information.

"In another instance a woman with a heart condition was dying at the same time that her sister was in a diabetic coma in another part of the same hospital. The subject reported having a conversation with her sister as both of them hovered near the ceiling watching the medical team work on her body below. When the woman awoke, she told the doctor that her sister had died while her own resuscitation was taking place. The doctor denied it, but when she insisted, he had a nurse check on it. The sister had, in fact, died during the time in question."


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Why do you keep bringing Islam into the conversation? If someone swore by that conversation and was absolutely convinced it was real and showed no signs of psychopathy or delusion (meaning he seemed like a normal bloke in his day-to-day life), perhaps some spirit did contact him? Does that mean the information he received by this spirit was accurate, moral or true? No. Does that justify his actions? No. If God told me to murder innocent people I'd tell him to fck off.
> 
> You keep going on about the mind, but if you looked into NDE you'd see that people that have been pronounced DEAD - meaning no BRAIN ACTIVITY and have come back to life sometimes as much as 30 mins later and recalled real experiences. How can it be a product of the mind if their brains are DEAD? The neuroscientist I referenced was in a coma and albeit, not dead, but THOUSANDS of people have been literally DEAD and then came back to life.
> 
> How do you explain people recalling conversations from doctors and nurses standing over their dead body? That verifies that something very real is occurring and clearly not a hallucination.


Yes, brain activity has been shut down before and then people have been resuscitated. And that's proof of?

If I get hammered tonight, completely pass out, wake up and recall a story about when Jessica Alba gave me a handijay the hour before, does that mean it actually happened or does that mean I'm talking bollocks cause 10 minutes ago I was KOed.

That verifies nothing, which is why the after life is unverified. I don't even get your stance. You can believe in it, I can believe in it, whatever, all good. But it's NOT verified. We know it's not verified. That's not some "open to opinion" thing. The after life isn't some concrete thing which we proved 5 years ago and it hit all the news papers. It's unverified, as essentially it's unverifiable. Beyond that, we can take information like the information you have, and as a result form our own opinion or belief system around it. I don't find anything about your stance on the matter to be bad at all, I completely see where you are coming from and why that information would lead you to formulate your opinion the way you do.......but it proves absolutely nata.

Furthermore...


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> There's lucid dreaming and then there's floating above your body after being pronounced brain dead and being able to recall the exact conversation of nurses and doctors standing over your dead body. That's not dreaming.
> 
> Blind people being able to see after being pronounced dead is not dreaming.
> 
> ...


When I was about 13 I was really into the spiritual stuff, especially Lucid Dreaming and something call Astral Projection.

I was actually quite advanced in Lucid Dreaming, I was at the point where I could realise I was dreaming and influence the dream... but not control what the dream was about or what would happen in it. It was at that point I thought I'd take a crack at Astral Projection too.

My parents used to make go to be at about 9.30 to 10 on school nights but I was never tired then and it would take an hour or two to fall asleep. So I figured I'd use that time to practice Astral Travel. I had read a few a books on it and had a good idea about how to achieve it (if it wasn't bullshit, but I was very open minded back then). Basically you prepared with some relaxation techniques and when you are fully relaxed the trick is to sit up. However, the tricky bit is that you're not allowed to sit up, you need to go through the full process of sitting up, but without using muscles... in essence you need to will yourself up.

I practised every night for an hour or two for about two months before something finally happened.

When it happened it was like the sensation you have when you are nodding off and you trip or fall and your body jolts. Except I was fully awake, and sitting up, except my body was still lying down, I know because I turned my head round to check. Of course I promptly freaked the **** out and laid back down, it was like an instant reconnection.

I don't know if any of you know what prisoners cinema is, but I used to get that a lot when I was a kid, being in a dark room unable to sleep. Anyways, immediately after that experiences I started to get nasty 'prisoners cinema' images, scary stuff, it was like I was being warned not to try that shit again. After that experience a lot of weird shit went on that house - I've actually wrote about them in this thread.

Now I look back on it and can rationalise it all. As far as the Astral Projection goes, well I probably just fell asleep after becoming good at the relaxation techniques.

I'm 99% sure there is no god or spirits or anything that cannot be explained with science. But there's always that 1%, the what if. If you asked me when I was 13 if I had fell asleep and dreamt it I'd have told you - No, because I was quite good a lucid dreaming and could recognise when I was dreaming and when I was wake, even if I was dreaming.

I guess with age comes scepticism.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

" An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs."

I'll wait for a response to this, and the thousands of other cases citing the same thing.



Spite said:


> When I was about 13 I was really into the spiritual stuff, especially Lucid Dreaming and something call Astral Projection.
> 
> I was actually quite advanced in Lucid Dreaming, I was at the point where I could realise I was dreaming and influence the dream... but not control what the dream was about or what would happen in it. It was at that point I thought I'd take a crack at Astral Projection too.
> 
> ...


You should try Astral Projection as an adult and see what experience(s) you have. I've tried it in the past and almost did it (meaning sat up outside of my body) but pussied out because it freaked me the fck out. Had some lucid dreams in the past too.

I'm quite interested to see if you could pull it off given that you had a knack for it as a kid, I reckon you'd be able to. Just don't ***** out when it gets scary like I did.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> You should try Astral Projection as an adult and see what experience(s) you have. I've tried it in the past and almost did it (meaning sat up outside of my body) but pussied out because it freaked me the fck out. Had some lucid dreams in the past too.
> 
> I'm quite interested to see if you could pull it off given that you had a knack for it as a kid, I reckon you'd be able to. Just don't ***** out when it gets scary like I did.


Yeah, I can safely say I'm never trying that shit again.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> " An elderly woman had been blind since childhood. But, during her NDE, the woman had regained her sight and she was able to accurately describe the instruments and techniques used during the resuscitation her body. After the woman was revived, she reported the details to her doctor. She was able to tell her doctor who came in and out, what they said, what they wore, what they did, all of which was true. Her doctor then referred the woman to Moody who he knew was doing research at the time on NDEs."
> 
> I'll wait for a response to this, and the thousands of other cases citing the same thing.


The same way Derren Brown can predict the lottery numbers.

There are TONNES of unexplained anomalies in the world. To say that because something can't be explained is proof of something else is probably the least scientific thing possible. To conclude upon something you wish to "prove" isn't science, it's confirmation bias.

EDIT: In short, I can't explain it. I also can't explain how the earth came to be, that doesn't prove the major religions of the world correct either.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> You should try Astral Projection as an adult and see what experience(s) you have. I've tried it in the past and almost did it (meaning sat up outside of my body) but pussied out because it freaked me the fck out. Had some lucid dreams in the past too.
> 
> I'm quite interested to see if you could pull it off given that you had a knack for it as a kid, I reckon you'd be able to. Just don't ***** out when it gets scary like I did.


Curious, did you use the same technique as I did to achieve it? Or did you try something else?
@ClydebankBlitz Peaceful cinema goers? You guys need a NATO peacekeeping force in your cinemas


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The same way Derren Brown can predict the lottery numbers.
> 
> There are TONNES of unexplained anomalies in the world. To say that because something can't be explained is proof of something else is probably the least scientific thing possible. To conclude upon something you wish to "prove" isn't science, it's confirmation bias.
> 
> EDIT: In short, I can't explain it. I also can't explain how the earth came to be, that doesn't prove the major religions of the world correct either.


I don't think you understand. The doctors OUTSIDE of the woman's "dream" as you think it is, CONFIRMED that what she said was true. A blind woman, dead, restores vision and describes things in the surgery room EXACTLY as they occur - verified by the doctors.

This is proof that a blind woman was able to restore vision after dying - credited by the doctors operating on her. There's no conformation bias, only confirmation of the doctors outside of the woman's experience.

@Spite pssy 

I might give astral projection another try because some of the experiences some people describe are amazing (some also very scary though).

Yea, I used the same technique you used. Relaxing, falling asleep but being fully conscious of the process and then trying to sit up outside of my body. It was working, but then I shit myself and stopped immediately.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> @Spite pssy
> 
> I might give astral projection another try because some of the experiences some people describe are amazing (some also very scary though).
> 
> Yea, I used the same technique you used. Relaxing, falling asleep but being fully conscious of the process and then trying to sit up outside of my body. It was working, but then I shit myself and stopped immediately.


Slightly different for me, the goal was never to fall asleep, but be relaxed. When it happened I was sure a was fully awake.

Like you say, it's supposed to be amazing if you can do it. But so many freaky things happened after I tried it that I don't really want go through it again. If it even happened at all, which is unlikely, but like I said, it's that 1% of doubt - what IF it really did happen.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

Spite said:


> Slightly different for me, the goal was never to fall asleep, but be relaxed. When it happened I was sure a was fully awake.
> 
> Like you say, it's supposed to be amazing if you can do it. But so many freaky things happened after I tried it that I don't really want go through it again. If it even happened at all, which is unlikely, but like I said, it's that 1% of doubt - what IF it really did happen.


Yea, the guide I used was to be fully conscious of the falling asleep process, not just relaxation. When you're asleep your brain paralyzes your limbs so you don't kick and punch whilst you're dreaming. When you feel your body paralyzed, then project - that was the advice I followed.

The process was definitely real and I was "projecting" but wasn't fully committed to it and backed out.

My dad unintentionally had an OBE and thought he was being dragged to hell! lol, he was terrified of going back to sleep for ages.

I also used to suffer with sleep paralysis - that was really scary.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> I don't think you understand. The doctors OUTSIDE of the woman's "dream" as you think it is, CONFIRMED that what she said was true. A blind woman, dead, restores vision and describes things in the surgery room EXACTLY as they occur - verified by the doctors.
> 
> This is proof that a blind woman was able to restore vision after dying - credited by the doctors operating on her. There's no conformation bias, only confirmation of the doctors outside of the woman's experience.


Completely get you, but you know there's a reason this appears as part of your NDE stories and on unexplained mystery websites right? The unexplainable is just that. It might be a form of proof that the things you said it proves is true, but it doesn't explain WHY those things happened.

What you are linking this to is afterlife, there you'll find that ever elusive confirmation bias. Because the experience she faced no more explains the existence of an "otherworld" than The Man from Taured proves alien life forms or alternate dimensions.

I don't know if there are tonnes of verified ones, but if you go out there you will find an endless amount of seemingly unexplainable stories. An example earlier I touched on was the poltergeist stories. If my furniture flies around right now, OH MY GOD IT'S GHOSTS! But there has been occasions where a completely mental magnetic field has caused this to happen. I'm not sure of the science behind why it happens but some smart lads figured it out and proved the theory.

It might be a whole different can of worms to find out how that woman explained that, but if you said to me "Clyde, here's a video of my house, shit's flying around, explain it mate" and that magnetic theory had never been conceived by any one, I would reply to you "I don't know how that happens" the same way I reply "I don't know how she was able to tell them that stuff".

It doesn't confirm the afterlife in any way, shape or form. You are also putting all of your stock into the "no brain activity" bracket. If I'm correct, there was research done at some stage which showed someone in a brain dead vegetative state was able to produce brain activity when communicated to about certain things. There are also a lot of things which I'm not 100% sure on which can result in a massive array of things like the white light, life flickering before your eyes, massive amounts of stuff. As a result, nothing is confirmed.

Basically, it's like your mention of astral projections. You take out testimonials and you end up with absolutely nothing to go on. You can't ever go beyond "belief" when dealing with people and their own experiences. When things aren't factual, they just leave opinions and beliefs which are perfectly fine if you accept them for just that.

EDIT: In the 10 minutes it took to look up some more details, I've found myself agreeing with almost everything from Susan Blackmore, someone who was completely convinced in the existence in all of these things and even experienced her outer body experiences....only to research them and find absolutely nothing.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

I reckon the word religion naturally triggers some sort of aversion because people tend to link it to specific dogmatic religions.

However, to go after answers from where we came and our purpose is the broad meaning of religion. A free concept. A completely free search for your connection to the universe. 

It is at leas curious that people shut themselves down so easily when it comes to use their own minds and rely entirely on third party elements to tell them what is what. 

I find incredible also that people who know as little about the complexity of the brains as they know about the after life want to state what is right or what is wrong with so much conviction.

Mocking and bullying people who have their own view about the universe and them falling on the contradiction of using extreme intolerance to call them crazy and terrorists. 

That's OK, I am absolutely sure several people who visited this thread found great information and it was useful for them, even though they understandably won't say a word, and they are right about it.

Not everybody is able or is in the right point of evolution to grasp the connection to the outer world. There's no problem at all with that, as long as they are still evolving morally toward fraternity. That's what we are doing here. Learning every day. And no piece of information you gather here will be in vain, even if you would learn something as late as moments before the death of your physical body.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Spite said:


> When I lived in Scotland and first tried Bucky I thought it tasted like piss. To this day I still think it tastes like piss. I honestly do not get how a tonic wine became so popular. I can understand for it for kids, like how I used to drink 20/20 when I was a kid because its cheap and gets you hammered. But in Scotland, Buckfast is one for the generations - enjoyed by grandparents, parents and children on special occasions such as days of the week that end with the letter 'y'.


Bucky is f***in vile shit hahaha, maybe the worst drink ever produced!

As for Iron Bru, I've never tasted it, its good to say in a Scottish accent though!



ReptilianSlayer said:


> There's lucid dreaming and then there's floating above your body after being pronounced brain dead and being able to recall the exact conversation of nurses and doctors standing over your dead body. That's not dreaming.
> 
> Blind people being able to see after being pronounced dead is not dreaming.
> 
> ...


Its a long stretch. People talk nonsense all the time about a lot of shit. How many people have had Mary appear to them? Theres relics all over the world that people swear they have had apparitions at and flock to to kneel and pray to these sacred places. Theres so many stories of nonsense on so many things, and the religious and those with faith just believe them and follow blindly no matter how unlikely. The fact is it suits them to follow and maybe it feels nice inside to do it. 

Its much more logical to me that a brain produces images when under extreme stress. When almost dead or even clinically dead, Science doesn't know everything about the brain yet by a long shot. Its only beginning to figure out nutrition and things like ketgenics. The brain producing images is much more so then the reality of someone floating above their body. I have had countless dreams where I am watching myself doing shit. I use to have one when I was a kid where giant shit monsters were chasing me through a wacky races type of dessert. I was watching that happen, but it didn't mean a transported to another world where shit monsters chase human souls that manifest in the form of our human bodies. 
If I were dying on an operating table. Under anaesthetic remember, a strong drug that puts you to sleep and will significantly affect your brain activity, of course my brain is going to produce crazy shit. Have you ever done strong mushrooms or acid and see the kind of shit your brain produces then? When your body is dying I expect it produces a variety of chemicals in the same way it produces adrenaline in some situations. Combine that with whatever is in those 5cl's of shit the Dr' screams at the nurse for you can bet your bottom dollar it will produce some wacky visions in a brain. 
Im really surprised you believe in stories like this. To not rule out the possibility is one thing, but to full on believe it in when there is no proof other then other peoples stories well that is the same as blind faith. We both know people are extremely fallible and lie constantly for a multitude of reasons. This is what created blind faith in the first place.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

I've actually had that "watching myself in a room" experience under acid once. Quite fascinating.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Im really surprised you believe in stories like this. To not rule out the possibility is one thing, but to full on believe it in when there is no proof *other then other peoples stories* well that is the same as blind faith.


What about when the facts are not happening with "other people", but with yourself?

And before you answer, bear in mind that all scientific methods you trust more than anything and are officially used by the most credible institutions, attest I am not crazy.


----------



## <M>MA (Nov 20, 2006)

What in the hell has this thread turned into?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I reckon the word religion naturally triggers some sort of aversion because people tend to link it to specific dogmatic religions.
> 
> However, to go after answers from where we came and our purpose is the broad meaning of religion. A free concept. A completely free search for your connection to the universe.
> 
> ...


There can't be any way you're talking about me right? This is almost exclusively what I've been banging on about the entire time. I had a massive exchange with M.C. because I disagreed with him, HexRei and others feeling the immediate need to jump on top of faith at the mere mention of it. Read my first post in the thread for example.

I agree with absolutely everything...until the last paragraph. Now you do it again. You throw an entire post talking about people being too closed minded to allow themselves to be open to other ideas, but then you go back to "but this is fact". It's simply NOT fact. Afterlife is a concept, a theory, which one may attempt to prove or disprove or simply believe in. As I said to Rep, I completely believe why he would believe in the afterlife based on some of the examples he gave in the thread. Again, you act as though I've once given my opinion on whether I believe in God/any faith or the afterlife in the first place. I haven't. I'm just trying to get you and Rep to be open minded too. Guys like M.C. freeze up whenever faith is discussed, but the reason they freeze up is because you or Rep are telling them they are closed minded because they don't believe. Open mindedness is about the freedom to decipher your own information, as long as you don't dismiss factual information out of stubbornness. As nothing you or Rep have posted confirms or proves the existence of the afterlife, you simply can't call someone closed minded if they don't draw the same conclusions from the information as you do.

I have absolutely no problem with someone choosing to believe or disbelieve in a harmless thing. I'm actually fking sick of people on this site acting as though disagreeing with them makes you have a differing opinion. M.C. was challenging my "faith" cause I disagreed with him, you are challenging my "atheism" cause I disagreed with you. How can I be a faithful atheist? (Actually, that expression is exactly what I'm gonna use to describe annoying militant atheists from now on :laugh


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

any updates on goober? With so many of us praying......you never know


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

try not to double post guys. Use the edit button.


----------



## MMAexamined (May 11, 2015)

Being a Christian (a shitty one to be honest), I am irritated by this pastor for "praying" to God to hurt someone, just because he's angry at Connor insulting God. 

So this is actually ego that's hurt, nothing more... In bible it is stated (in addition to blasphemy being the worse kind of sin) that God hates *sin* not sinners.

There's ton of things that are just plain stupid, and has nothing to do with Christianity, but I'm not turning this in religion thread...


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

"Magic", "Supernatural", "Fantastic", all words created by human beings to describe what they don't comprehend yet.

Nor all humans have the same capability. Some will sense, hear or see things others won't and no one can say it's a flat lie or craziness because they can't see what others can.

Now you show this picture to a person and swears to god there's a 73 in it:










And if that person can't see it at all, you could be called crazy, liar and even a terrorist, according to some people here, when the simple fact is one has a capability the other doesn't for being color blind.

And just to enphasize how strong is the bias of this "Scientific Community" toward materialism, I present one of the best quotes regarding Princeton University's Dr Robert G. Jahn study on *psychokinesis*.



> It would be easy for some to dismiss the work done by Dr Jahn as worthless due to the lack of peer reviews but that does not tell the whole story. *The fact is that many in the scientific field simply dismiss the subject as preposterous without even looking at the reports. Others think that lending their support to something considered to be mumbo jumbo is a risk to their credibility and would rather avoid it so as not to harm their own career prospects.*
> 
> http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/


I find astounding that such low level beens who need oxygen and calories to feed their bodies and often need to take a dump wants to pretend they know what's not out there and dismiss anyone else experiences.

Scientists know a lot and they are very important to our life in this world, but the reality is they are barely starting to figure out their own physical world. There's a logic they can't explain yet which is: reason. They can only observe and relate things but there's a lot in this very physical world they can't explain, like something as simple as why molecules behave the way they do. 

Look how interesting it becomes to Richard Feynman to respond a single question about why magnets attract and repel...






Yeah, good, we know a positive attracts a negative, but why they do it? It's obvious, but why? Even gravity is not well comprehended yet. Yes, it can be measured, yes it generates acceleration of roughly 10 m/s2 on Earth, but...why?

We are a long way only on physical world alone. Arrogance only slows us down.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

MMAexamined said:


> Being a Christian (a shitty one to be honest), I am irritated by this pastor for "praying" to God to hurt someone, just because he's angry at Connor insulting God.
> 
> So this is actually ego that's hurt, nothing more... In bible it is stated (in addition to blasphemy being the worse kind of sin) that God hates *sin* not sinners.
> 
> There's ton of things that are just plain stupid, and has nothing to do with Christianity, but I'm not turning this in religion thread...


The Christian religion is full of hatred and bigotry, glorifying murder and death, etc. That pastor is actually doing a really solid job in supporting his faith. 

I would like to say again though, that jesus was probably a short little shit and Conor would KO him within a few seconds. This pastor needs to stop fighting his god's fight and let his god fend for himself. Jesus is always going to be a ***** bitch if his pastors don't make him stand up and defend himself. If you love someone, you teach them how to handle themselves, not protect them and threaten death on anyone that insults them.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

The thing that get's me is that people believe in an all powerful yet invisible God who sent his son here to die and then come back to life and who has a cushty paradise for me when I die if i'm nice and believe in him. 

I don't have a problem with people believing that BUT if I were to go and tell a Christian that I believe we are the creation of Aliens who came to earth millions of years ago (an idea that is more possible and has just as much evidence as Christianity) then they would look at me like i'm some maniac with a brain defect.

Seems odd that one unprovable belief should be respected yet the people who believe it have no problem ridiculing other unprovable beliefs.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> I would like to say again though, that jesus was probably a short little shit and Conor would KO him within a few seconds. This pastor needs to stop fighting his god's fight and let his god fend for himself. Jesus is always going to be a ***** bitch if his pastors don't make him stand up and defend himself.


Damn, this post. You sound so sure about the universe, but can't even grasp the concept of "moderation", yet, look at you...big shot moderator.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Damn, this post. You sound so sure about the universe, but can't even grasp the concept of "moderation", yet, look at you...big shot moderator.


This, who made this guy an admin, sounds more like an angry dateless 14 year old youtube troll with posts like this.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Damn, this post. You sound so sure about the universe, but can't even grasp the concept of "moderation", yet, look at you...big shot moderator.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

edit - having fun in a thread about a pastor asking for someone's death because they made a joke about jesus seems like a reasonable thing to do. :dunno:

Am I suppose be taking such a silly thing seriously when even the guy being threatened is poking fun at it? What should I say instead? "Oh no, Conor should sue him"? I mean really, you cannot possibly take it seriously.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Pastor Claims McGregor responsible for climate change.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Pastor Claims McGregor responsible for climate change.


Hmmm tempted to write climate change is a myth just to take this thread to a mew level of ridculousness!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

M.C said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.


I knew that already.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

M.C said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> edit - having fun in a thread about a pastor asking for someone's death because they made a joke about jesus seems like a reasonable thing to do. :dunno:
> 
> Am I suppose be taking such a silly thing seriously when even the guy being threatened is poking fun at it? What should I say instead? "Oh no, Conor should sue him"? I mean really, you cannot possibly take it seriously.


Ok then, you are a little ***** bitch atheist loser with no life who got no hugs as a kid.

Wait ... am I doing this joking thing right? The thread title makes it cool right?

Don't get offended or infringe me, just trying to prove a point, using your own words no less.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> Ok then, you are a little ***** bitch atheist loser with no life who got no hugs as a kid.
> 
> Wait ... am I doing this joking thing right? The thread title makes it cool right?
> 
> Don't get offended or infringe me, just trying to prove a point, using your own words no less.


Good post. :thumbsup:

Of course I never insulted anyone, I made fun of a character in a book. Cause you know, we all know making fun of characters is the same as insulting an actual real life/alive person who you are interacting with. If you wanted to go by my logic, you should have insulted batman, I like movies based on his character.

Good stuff, though. :hug:


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

M.C said:


> Good post. :thumbsup:
> 
> Of course I never insulted anyone, I made fun of a character in a book. Cause you know, we all know making fun of characters is the same as insulting an actual real life/alive person who you are interacting with. If you wanted to go by my logic, you should have insulted batman, I like movies based on his character.
> 
> Good stuff, though. :hug:


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

This train wreck is over.


----------

