Loch Ness monster cited by US schools as evidence that evolution is myth [Archive] - Page 2

DiStOrTiOn

07-05-2012, 01:01 AM

I just hear it stated often that God cannot be real, because humanity suffers greatly and we are at a loss for meaning. I don't think that's a good argument against God's existence. The point is, it's a deity, and a creative deity might have a wider perspective on what's ultimately good for mankind. So with the assumption that such a god exists, the pursuit to transcend our condition may well be inseparable from human nature, essentially making us what we are. Maybe flawless wasn't the term to use, but 'exactly as we ought to be' or perfectly human.

God cannot be real unless there exists an infinite amount of gods along with it.

If a universe and carbon-based molecular systems require a creator because of their seeming complexity, then so does that god. You can only escape or subvert this problem by turning off your left brain.

Rust

07-05-2012, 01:08 AM

I just hear it stated often that God cannot be real, because humanity suffers greatly and we are at a loss for meaning. I don't think that's a good argument against God's existence.

It's an excellent argument against the type of god that's used as a response to: an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god.

Clearly, you can rationalize away the existence of suffering. But you'd have to contradict (or play around with) one of those characteristics. Those characteristics are prevalent in the major religions.

The point is, it's a deity, and a creative deity might have a wider perspective on what's ultimately good for mankind. So with the assumption that such a god exists, the pursuit to transcend our condition may well be inseparable from human nature, essentially making us what we are. Maybe flawless wasn't the term to use, but 'exactly as we ought to be' or perfectly human.

Except that through omnipotence he must possess the ability to guide mankind to that "ultimate good" by an infinite amount of other routes that don't require the suffering. He can make it separable from human nature.

I'm sure you can rationalize this away as well; but in doing so you expose how awful and weak the "god" answer is: you're running around trying to plug holes in a sinking ship.

Captain Falcon

07-05-2012, 01:18 AM

I don't know about any of you, but while I think that religions are worthless and futile and their gods are certainly fake, I do believe in an underlying structure beyond our grasp. It's not "sentient" in a way that we define gods in religions but more like a mechanism.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 01:25 AM

Captain Falcon

07-05-2012, 01:36 AM

There is no logic in choosing a belief system that leaves you with a gaping void over one that gives you boundless love, joy, peace, and grace.

Atheists are making the most retarded philosophical choices possible and proclaiming them the most rational.

There's no logic in choosing one that's built on wishful thinking. What I want doesn't interfere with what's true.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 01:49 AM

There's no logic in choosing one that's built on wishful thinking. What I want doesn't interfere with what's true.

You don't want there to be a God, but it is true that there is a God.

Danger

07-05-2012, 01:54 AM

no spectral, you just don't have any kind of understanding of science. You're response of 'shit we don't absolutely understand yet disproves evolution or physics' is fucking stupid and people have been using it for generations. It's just the god of the gaps argument which is fucking retarded, limited and sad. The more we learn, the old gaps in your argument are abandoned, forcing you to retreat from, 'if we came from monkeys, why are there monkeys,' to 'how is RNA formed' to 'where do electrons come from?'

As science answers these questions you can't use them for your stupid argument anymore, but eventually, we'll find out and so far, the answer to these questions hasn't come up, because jesus said so.

Why would anyone limit theological explanations to "gaps"? What if the term "god" was used as a metaphor, for the "laws of the Universe"/the Universe itself??

Science is a tool for understanding the nature of god.

Captain Falcon

07-05-2012, 01:57 AM

You don't want there to be a God, but it is true that there is a God.

I'm not sure who DOESN'T wish there was an all-benevolent creator, but you're still pulling shit out your ass; there's no reason to believe in a god.

Danger

07-05-2012, 01:58 AM

There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls”
― Max Planck

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 02:05 AM

I'm not sure who DOESN'T wish there was an all-benevolent creator, but you're still pulling shit out your ass; there's no reason to believe in a god.

Atheists don't wish there was an all-benevolent creator, because if they did they wouldn't stop searching for Him until they found Him. Instead, they choose to believe that no such God exists, and proclaim it as the one and only reality of life and the universe. Atheists are wrong, and aren't even pursuing the Truth of the matter.

Captain Falcon

07-05-2012, 02:28 AM

Atheists don't wish there was an all-benevolent creator, because if they did they wouldn't stop searching for Him until they found Him. Instead, they choose to believe that no such God exists, and proclaim it as the one and only reality of life and the universe. Atheists are wrong, and aren't even pursuing the Truth of the matter.

:facepalm:

you are a fucking idiot, seriously.

-SpectraL

07-05-2012, 02:53 AM

...These particles seem to exist as omnipresent entities in a plane of infinity...But they DO exist, and therefore they must have a source in order to exist. As I mentioned earlier, you can't get something from nothing. You have still not answered the question.

DiStOrTiOn

07-05-2012, 03:08 AM

But they DO exist, and therefore they must have a source in order to exist. As I mentioned earlier, you can't get something from nothing. You have still not answered the question.

you can't get god-entities from nothing. But you can get a universe from matter that already existed within a singularity.

p6867

07-05-2012, 02:28 PM

But they DO exist, and therefore they must have a source in order to exist. As I mentioned earlier, you can't get something from nothing. You have still not answered the question.

We don't know yet, someday we will. Such is the nature of scientific progress. To say that because we don't know now, god must have done it is pathetic. People said the same thing about the movement of the sun and moon stars in the sky. God does it, because they didn't know yet. The more we learn, the more questions we have about our universe, so there's always a new point for you to look at and yell, 'God did it'. The real truth is, we don't know yet, someday we will, but so far, none of the questions we've answered have come out to be 'god did it.'

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 05:03 PM

:facepalm:

you are a fucking idiot, seriously.

If I'm an idiot then you're a retard, according to science at least.

Captain Falcon

07-05-2012, 05:10 PM

If I'm an idiot then you're a retard, according to science at least.

I don't think science would agree with your constant misuse of it's name.

So far, your only response to how stupid your belief in god is has been the same hippie dippy bullshit with you constantly avoiding giving a straight. I don't use my ignore list, but if I did, I can guarantee you'd be it's first customer.

I repeat:

:facepalm: You're a fucking idiot, seriously.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 05:12 PM

I don't think science would agree with your constant misuse of it's name.

So far, your only response to how stupid your belief in god is has been the same hippie dippy bullshit with you constantly avoiding giving a straight. I don't use my ignore list, but if I did, I can guarantee you'd be it's first customer.

I repeat:

:facepalm: You're a fucking idiot, seriously.

If you had experienced what I have experienced, you would see a belief in God as the only logical conclusion. And again, calling me an idiot is insulting your own intelligence according to science's best measure of intelligence: an IQ test.

Rust

07-05-2012, 05:17 PM

And again, calling me an idiot is insulting your own intelligence according to science's best measure of intelligence: an IQ test.

You are so incredibly fucking stupid you can't even realize the fact that:

a. That assumes you know for a fact your IQ is bigger than his. You don't.

b. That assumes IQ in and of itself determines intelligence in such absolute manner that considering someone with a high IQ to be "an idiot" means everyone with a lower IQ is an idiot. It doesn't.

You're a fucking moron.

Aperson444

07-05-2012, 05:18 PM

But they DO exist, and therefore they must have a source in order to exist. As I mentioned earlier, you can't get something from nothing. You have still not answered the question.

So then answer me this: Where did God come from?

I'm trying to suggest that these particles could play the role of God. I'm making a concession to you. You should be overjoyed.

We don't know yet, someday we will. Such is the nature of scientific progress. To say that because we don't know now, god must have done it is pathetic. People said the same thing about the movement of the sun and moon stars in the sky. God does it, because they didn't know yet. The more we learn, the more questions we have about our universe, so there's always a new point for you to look at and yell, 'God did it'. The real truth is, we don't know yet, someday we will, but so far, none of the questions we've answered have come out to be 'god did it.'

This. Scientists are working harder than Spectral or TSB have and ever will to figure out the eccentric nature of the universe.

If you had experienced what I have experienced, you would see a belief in God as the only logical conclusion. And again, calling me an idiot is insulting your own intelligence according to science's best measure of intelligence: an IQ test.

You've pretty much admitted that you're a trolling asshole :o

If God existed, why would God even want us to acknowledge his/her/its existence? Why would God want us to worship him/her/it? It makes no sense to claim that a humanoid, sentient, benevolent God exists. That's just wishful thinking.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 05:28 PM

You are so incredibly fucking stupid you can't even realize the fact that:

a. That assumes you know for a fact your IQ is bigger than his. You don't.

b. That assumes IQ in and of itself determines intelligence in such absolute manner that considering someone with a high IQ to be "an idiot" means everyone with a lower IQ is an idiot. It doesn't.

You're a fucking moron.

All you have behind your insults are claims. I have actual scientific evidence that contradicts your claims. Stop being non-scientific just because it suits your purposes at a certain time. Even if me being a moron is just your opinion, it is a false opinion because there is scientific evidence that contradicts it.

Rust

07-05-2012, 05:33 PM

All you have behind your insults are claims. I have actual scientific evidence that contradicts your claims. Stop being non-scientific just because it suits your purposes at a certain time. Even if me being a moron is just your opinion, it is a false opinion because there is scientific evidence that contradicts it.

No, you have absolutely no scientific evidence behind your claims. We have posted countless different examples explaining the chemistry behind abiogenesis, and why your dumb analogies and baseless examples don't apply.

- We've explained how the primitive forms of life that are relevant would not be as complexed as a cell, or even as DNA.

- We've explained how these primitive forms of life would be under selective pressures similar to natural selection in biological organisism, since they would compete, replicate and change.

- We've explained how the relevant probability calculations would involve trillions and trillions of different events, all happening continuously over billions of years.

What have you brought? Absolutely nothing. You insisted that it was impossible or highly unlikely and when asked what analysis you used to get that result, you said it was your opinion.

Again, you are a fucking moron.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 05:42 PM

No, you have absolutely no scientific evidence behind your claims. We have posted countless different examples explaining the chemistry behind abiogenesis, and why your dumb analogies and baseless examples don't apply.

- We've explained how the primitive forms of life that are relevant would not be as complexed as a cell, or even as DNA.

- We've explained how these primitive forms of life would be under selective pressures similar to natural selection in biological organisism, since they would compete, replicate and change.

- We've explained how the relevant probability calculations would involve trillions and trillions of different events, all happening continuously over billions of years.

What have you brought? Absolutely nothing. You insisted that it was impossible or highly unlikely and when asked what analysis you used to get that result, you said it was your opinion.

Again, you are a fucking moron.

I have scientific evidence behind my intelligence. Therefore you calling me a moron is ignoring scientific evidence in favor of your own beliefs.

Rust

07-05-2012, 05:44 PM

I have scientific evidence behind my intelligence. Therefore you calling me a moron is ignoring scientific evidence in favor of your own beliefs.

I'm glad we can both agree you have absolutely no evidence behind the claims regarding abiogenesis, and instead have decided to talk about "IQ" because your ego was wounded by someone calling you a moron.

:lol:

P.S. You "evidence" for a high IQ is actually just a claim. If your ego is so wounded that you want us to believe your claim, then maybe you should post the actual tangible evidence for your high IQ....

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 05:52 PM

I'm glad we can both agree you have absolutely no evidence behind the claims regarding abiogenesis, and instead have decided to talk about "IQ" because your ego was wounded by someone calling you a moron.

:lol:

P.S. You "evidence" for a high IQ is actually just a claim. Unless you can demonstrate that:

a) Your IQ is bigger than ours, and b) that IQ in and of itself determines intelligence in such absolute manner that considering someone with a high IQ to be "an idiot" means everyone with a lower IQ is an idiot., you have no point.

I'm just hoping you use better insults in the future, ones that actually apply to what I post, for example "You are uneducated on the topic at hand." Insulting my intelligence does nothing to my ego, because claims that I lack intelligence have been scientifically demonstrated to be false using the best methods science has come up with to measure intelligence. If you were to call me uneducated, I might actually step back and go "Damn it, he's got a point!"

Rust

07-05-2012, 06:30 PM

... for example "You are uneducated on the topic at hand."

No, that doesn't work. There is a huge difference between being uninformed, which would be perfectly understandable, and what you are. You're uninformed, yes, but you're also a moron.

Someone who is uninformed would ask questions in order to be informed. You made assertions, spoke out of your ass, lied, and misrepresented facts. That means either you're intelligent and very dishonest, or you're just plain retarded.

Insulting my intelligence does nothing to my ego, because claims that I lack intelligence have been scientifically demonstrated to be false using the best methods science has come up with to measure intelligence. If you were to call me uneducated, I might actually step back and go "Damn it, he's got a point!"

Keep telling yourself that as you continue to insist that you have IQ when the topic of this thread is evolution/abiogenesis.

By the way, no you haven't demonstrated the opinions of you to be false. First all all, they are opinions, and second of all you haven't provided any proof. You claimed you had a high IQ. Even if we were to consider IQ tests as proof of intelligence in and of themselves, you still haven't provided them. You provided the allegation, not the evidence. Just to be clear, I don't care about your IQ results, I'm just pointing out how stupid you are that you think claiming you have a high IQ is equivalent to having proved you do.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 06:36 PM

No, that doesn't work. There is a huge difference between being uninformed, which would be perfectly understandable, and what you are. You're uninformed, yes, but you're also a moron.

Someone who is uninformed would ask questions in order to be informed. You made assertions, spoke out of your ass, lied, and misrepresented facts. That means either you're intelligent and very dishonest, or you're just plain retarded.

Keep telling yourself that as you continue to insist that you have IQ when the topic of this thread is evolution/abiogenesis.

By the way, no you haven't demonstrated the opinions of you to be false. First all all, they are opinions, and second of all you haven't provided any proof. You claimed you had a high IQ. Even if we were to consider IQ tests as proof of intelligence in and of themselves, you still haven't provided them. You provided the allegation, not the evidence. Just to be clear, I don't care about your IQ results, I'm just pointing out how stupid you are that you think claiming you have a high IQ is equivalent to having proved you do.

The more you attack my ego, the closer to the Spirit I become. You're doing me a favor in strengthening my faith in and knowledge of God. You're a moron for not believing.

Rust

07-05-2012, 06:37 PM

So then you should welcome the fact that I'm pointing out how incredibly dumb you are. Excellent! :thumbsup:

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 06:45 PM

So then you should welcome the fact that I'm pointing out how incredibly dumb you are. Excellent! :thumbsup:

As I can point how how incredibly dumb you are for denying the greatest Truth of life. What a grave philosophical mistake you've made.

Rust

07-05-2012, 06:46 PM

The more you attack my ego, the closer to the Spirit I become. You're doing me a favor in strengthening my faith in and knowledge of God. You're a moron for not believing.

...

You've pretty much admitted that you're a trolling asshole :o

You're a fucking moron.

:facepalm: You're a fucking idiot, seriously.

How can your intelligence be in question when you don't have any :confused:

...

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d135/DSKEmmanuel/SSJJesus.jpg

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 06:50 PM

...

...

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d135/DSKEmmanuel/SSJJesus.jpg

I find it ironic that you guys call me names slandering my intelligence when I know more than you about the subject of God and Divinity.

Rust

07-05-2012, 06:57 PM

Well since this thread deals with evolution/abiogenesis - which you know fuck all about - then you might as well be bragging about your knowledge of Narnia.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 07:03 PM

Well since this thread deals with evolution/abiogenesis - which you know fuck all about - then you might as well be bragging about your knowledge of Narnia.

There you go again, being a moron and denying the greatest Truth of life.

Rust

07-05-2012, 07:11 PM

:lol:

Greyusurper

07-05-2012, 07:26 PM

The One True God has many names, of the ones you mentioned Allah is one of the names.

Wrong! If you knew anything, you'd know this is the one true god!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6j461bm7S1rt6wd2o1_500.gif
Should make sense to you too. He's a frost giant, you're a troll. You were made to kneel, as evidence by all your posts.

Atheists don't wish there was an all-benevolent creator, because if they did they wouldn't stop searching for Him until they found Him. Instead, they choose to believe that no such God exists, and proclaim it as the one and only reality of life and the universe. Atheists are wrong, and aren't even pursuing the Truth of the matter.

Sounds like you're creating an argument/justification for why it's okay to indoctrinate babies into your crazy religion. Remember, we're all born Atheists then we're taught religion. Then some of us turn back, based on what we've learned. Clearly, you're not learning. You answered my question in the most limited of ways. If you took in a broader worldview perspective, you'd realize that many cultures have religion and that yours is no more righter and more realer than theirs. You were born in a place and time where you're surrounded by people clearly steeped in one religion, one god. But if you were born 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing to me a completely different set of beliefs and "how real they are". 'They' being plural for multiple gods. Most of the Mediterranean world, Northern Europe, North Africa, North and South Americas... You're just a sad man if you actually believe what you're babbling.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5pyamPph91qi52io.gif

I find it ironic that you guys call me names slandering my intelligence when I know more than you about the subject of God and Divinity.

To bad theirs no way to prove that, given the unlimited resources of the Internet at all our disposals. I'm sure more than a few of us could stomp you, as I have many a time on my church going friends.

TheSexyBeast821

07-05-2012, 08:51 PM

Wrong! If you knew anything, you'd know this is the one true god!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6j461bm7S1rt6wd2o1_500.gif
Should make sense to you too. He's a frost giant, you're a troll. You were made to kneel, as evidence by all your posts.

Sounds like you're creating an argument/justification for why it's okay to indoctrinate babies into your crazy religion. Remember, we're all born Atheists then we're taught religion. Then some of us turn back, based on what we've learned. Clearly, you're not learning. You answered my question in the most limited of ways. If you took in a broader worldview perspective, you'd realize that many cultures have religion and that yours is no more righter and more realer than theirs. You were born in a place and time where you're surrounded by people clearly steeped in one religion, one god. But if you were born 2,000 years ago, you'd be arguing to me a completely different set of beliefs and "how real they are". 'They' being plural for multiple gods. Most of the Mediterranean world, Northern Europe, North Africa, North and South Americas... You're just a sad man if you actually believe what you're babbling.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5pyamPph91qi52io.gif

To bad theirs no way to prove that, given the unlimited resources of the Internet at all our disposals. I'm sure more than a few of us could stomp you, as I have many a time on my church going friends.

Say whatever the hell you want, it doesn't change the fact that I am often in communion with the One True God. If you had any inkling of being a scientist you would try to figure out what I'm talking about instead of denying it outright. Direct experience of God trumps the lack of evidence argument 100% of the time. You quite simply have no weapon to use against me or God.

Captain Falcon

07-06-2012, 04:49 AM

DiStOrTiOn

07-06-2012, 05:13 AM

This is why you will never be able to change a person's dedication to ancient religions and ancient concepts of deities:

A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers.

The study, which is published in the April 27 issue of Science, finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief.

“Our goal was to explore the fundamental question of why people believe in a God to different degrees,” says lead author Will Gervais, a PhD student in UBC’s Dept. of Psychology. “A combination of complex factors influence matters of personal spirituality, and these new findings suggest that the cognitive system related to analytic thoughts is one factor that can influence disbelief.”

Researchers used problem-solving tasks and subtle experimental priming – including showing participants Rodin’s sculpture The Thinker or asking participants to complete questionnaires in hard-to-read fonts – to successfully produce “analytic” thinking. The researchers, who assessed participants’ belief levels using a variety of self-reported measures, found that religious belief decreased when participants engaged in analytic tasks, compared to participants who engaged in tasks that did not involve analytic thinking.

The findings, Gervais says, are based on a longstanding human psychology model of two distinct, but related cognitive systems to process information: an “intuitive” system that relies on mental shortcuts to yield fast and efficient responses, and a more “analytic” system that yields more deliberate, reasoned responses.

“Our study builds on previous research that links religious beliefs to ‘intuitive’ thinking,” says study co-author and Associate Prof. Ara Norenzayan, UBC Dept. of Psychology. “Our findings suggest that activating the ‘analytic’ cognitive system in the brain can undermine the ‘intuitive’ support for religious belief, at least temporarily.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426143856.htm

In order for them to believe their religion and have faith they must shut off their analytical brain, which is required for science. Therefore you will never be able to use science to change their religious devotion

TheSexyBeast821

07-06-2012, 05:12 PM

http://ionetheurbandaily.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/antoine-dodson-dumb.gif

Your hallucinations are not proof of God.

Like I said, instead of being a true scientist and trying to figure out what I'm talking about, you dismiss the idea of God as nothing but a hallucination. If it were true that God were just a hallucination, He would be a shared hallucination between communities of people, and thus would be a real phenomenon. All the people hallucinating the same thing would be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which would be a real thing that produces more real things, even if it's found in the imagination.

This is why you will never be able to change a person's dedication to ancient religions and ancient concepts of deities:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426143856.htm

In order for them to believe their religion and have faith they must shut off their analytical brain, which is required for science. Therefore you will never be able to use science to change their religious devotion

Tell that to Carl Jung, founder of Analytical Psychology.

Zanick

07-06-2012, 06:05 PM

Like I said, instead of being a true scientist and trying to figure out what I'm talking about, you dismiss the idea of God as nothing but a hallucination. If it were true that God were just a hallucination, He would be a shared hallucination between communities of people, and thus would be a real phenomenon. All the people hallucinating the same thing would be members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which would be a real thing that produces more real things, even if it's found in the imagination.

Admittedly I've employed a very similar fallacy in the past to argue for the existence of chi energy, but it doesn't really follow that a phenomenon is real simply because many people have experienced it. That's like saying Benadryl spiders exist because everybody who gets high on it seems to perceive them. They exist as much as a hallucination can exist: as a symptom. Though I do agree that, as an idea, God has an observable effect on the physical world apart from suggesting the existence of a deity, giving it strong influence in our culture.

TheSexyBeast821

07-06-2012, 06:24 PM

Admittedly I've employed a very similar fallacy in the past to argue for the existence of chi energy, but it doesn't really follow that a phenomenon is real simply because many people have experienced it. That's like saying Benadryl spiders exist because everybody who gets high on it seems to perceive them. They exist as much as a hallucination can exist: as a symptom. Though I do agree that, as an idea, God has an observable effect on the physical world apart from suggesting the existence of a deity, giving it strong influence in our culture.

But the hallucination of the Mystical Body of Christ involves other people directly, as in a group of people who are in spiritual communion and in communion with God. The mere fact that such a 'hallucination' could be shared across space proves the existence of God.

Zanick

07-06-2012, 06:57 PM

But the hallucination of the Mystical Body of Christ involves other people directly, as in a group of people who are in spiritual communion and in communion with God. The mere fact that such a 'hallucination' could be shared across space proves the existence of God.

A hallucination remains a hallucination no matter how many people share it, this only proves the existence of a common psychosis. I'm not saying I think you hallucinated, only that your experience isn't necessarily given credibility by the number of people experiencing it. But then it must be decided what is and what is not a hallucination, and who gets to make the distinction, and therein lies the real issue here.

TheSexyBeast821

07-06-2012, 07:11 PM

A hallucination remains a hallucination no matter how many people share it, this only proves the existence of a common psychosis. I'm not saying I think you hallucinated, only that your experience isn't necessarily given credibility by the number of people experiencing it. But then it must be decided what is and what is not a hallucination, and who gets to make the distinction, and therein lies the real issue here.

You missed the point. If the so-called "psychosis" is being shared among people to the point that they are actually connected to each other, it proves God by mere fact of such a "shared psychosis" being possible.

By the way, your language is very hostile and alludes to the idea that you want to chemically lobotomize anyone who believes in God.

Zanick

07-06-2012, 08:08 PM

You missed the point. If the so-called "psychosis" is being shared among people to the point that they are actually connected to each other, it proves God by mere fact of such a "shared psychosis" being possible.

By the way, your language is very hostile and alludes to the idea that you want to chemically lobotomize anyone who believes in God.

I see your point, but it doesn't require that people are necessarily connected.

Essentially what I gather you're saying is that, because many people experience the Mystical Body of Christ subjectively, it means that God is a connecting force between their experiences. The problem I have with it is the leap taken from understanding God as a connecting idea, to a source of the experience itself. It's the same issue with Plato's thought-forms, where he claims that his Forms exist independently of the mind as metaphysical constructs, when all we can observe tells us that ideas are communicated to one another.

Hostile? I feel there is some miscommunication between us--as can easily happen through the internet--and I'm sorry if you perceive me that way. Looking back I can see how my words can be misconstrued. I have no problem with God or people who believe in God, although I generally lean towards agnosticism myself. For the most part I agree with you on collective consciousness, despite it being a deep philosophical problem. I just think this particular argument isn't sufficient proof.

TheSexyBeast821

07-06-2012, 08:13 PM

I see your point, but it doesn't require that people are necessarily connected.

Essentially what I gather you're saying is that, because many people experience the Mystical Body of Christ subjectively, it means that God is a connecting force between their experiences. The problem I have with it is the leap taken from understanding God as a connecting idea, to a source of the experience itself. It's the same issue with Plato's thought-forms, where he claims that his Forms exist independently of the mind as metaphysical constructs, when all we can observe tells us that ideas are communicated to one another.

Hostile? I feel there is some miscommunication between us--as can easily happen through the internet--and I'm sorry if you perceive me that way. Looking back I can see how my words can be misconstrued. I have no problem with God or people who believe in God, although I generally lean towards agnosticism myself. For the most part I agree with you on collective consciousness, despite it being a deep philosophical problem. I just think this particular argument isn't sufficient proof.

How do you propose collective consciousness exists without the medium of consciousness between minds to connect minds?

Zanick

07-06-2012, 08:39 PM

How do you propose collective consciousness exists without the medium of consciousness between minds to connect minds?

I think language and other forms of communication lead to similar states of consciousness, personally I think it can be a cultural phenomenon, induced by the concept Leary described as imprinting. So, collective in describing relationship, rather than defining such connections as a metaphysical item.

I guess my view would sort of fit under the category of memetics, now that I think about it.

TheSexyBeast821

07-06-2012, 08:56 PM

I think language and other forms of communication lead to similar states of consciousness, personally I think it can be a cultural phenomenon, induced by the concept Leary described as imprinting. So, collective in describing relationship, rather than defining such connections as a metaphysical item.

I guess my view would sort of fit under the category of memetics, now that I think about it.

So you haven't explored the metaphysical aspects of collective consciousness at all?
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm

Lanny

07-06-2012, 11:23 PM

What the fuck happened in this thread?

TheSexyBeast821, it was interesting watching Rust tear you apart. Even if you are a confirmed moron, you were being a moron about something that was at least tangentially related to this thread. However your last several posts have had /nothing/ to do with the topic at hand. Using the (completely unsupported) existence of a god to prove the supposed acts of god is not a valid mode of argument, and is totally irrelevant.

Let's try to get this thread back on track. It'd be nice if we could get back to the policy of teaching creationism in private schools, but failing that let's at least keep it to evolution/origin of life.

Zanick

07-07-2012, 12:14 AM

So you haven't explored the metaphysical aspects of collective consciousness at all?
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm

I've read that sort of page before, and I've read the whole metaphysics section at montalk, watched all the Spirit Science videos, etc. It's fascinating stuff and, provided that Plato had some real, tangible insight into the 'realm of ideas' apart from his own reasoning. But to me it all comes out as over-extended, metaphysical descriptions of otherwise natural social interactions.

Although collective consciousness is a rather elusive concept for many people, it's way "out there" so to speak. I remember learning about Jung a while back in high school, and I did some research on his theory, it was really dense to me back then, I didn't really get it for another couple years or so. My teacher spent about thirty seconds explaining it, and nobody understood what the hell he was talking about.

Let's try to get this thread back on track. It'd be nice if we could get back to the policy of teaching creationism in private schools, but failing that let's at least keep it to evolution/origin of life.

Sorry, I need to make more productive contributions :(

I think it's important to teach that some people believe in Creationism, as part of a social studies curriculum. As far as private schools go, it's a tough one. Parents have a right to dictate the education of their children, and I'd hope that private schools go over evolution to some degree as well, if only to give a more comprehensive understanding of what people believe outside the classroom and to prepare students for the world.

I wonder about the context of this particular story; what if a kid raised their hand to ask how the monster fits into evolution, and a teacher couldn't answer their question sufficiently. Then a student goes home and tell his parents all about how Nessie is proof against evolution. Before long it's a majorly controversial news story.

Although I may have forgotten some key details here, I feel like this is just one potential scenario which might have blown up into this story.

Greyusurper

07-07-2012, 12:19 AM

Say whatever the hell you want, it doesn't change the fact that I am often in communion with the One True God. If you had any inkling of being a scientist you would try to figure out what I'm talking about instead of denying it outright. Direct experience of God trumps the lack of evidence argument 100% of the time. You quite simply have no weapon to use against me or God.

If I have no weapon to use against you, why take it so personally? Clearly you're pissed that I've used the weapons of logic and reasoning to make you look foolish, even in your own eyes. I guess god can't fill that hole that is the burning rage my logic has left in you... How sad. :(

When you "commune" next, look for signs that god isn't everything you make him out to be. You know, obvious stuff, like this. :XD:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ethlSZ3w1qd5zkno1_250.gif

Haiti's Space Agency

07-07-2012, 12:35 AM

Is this thread still about Nessie or is it all different now

Aperson444

07-07-2012, 03:37 AM

Should make sense to you too. He's a frost giant, you're a troll. You were made to kneel, as evidence by all your posts.

Actually. I forgot to mention that point. How do you say that "God" is not Loki, Thor, Ra, Vishnu, Shiva, Mazda or one of the hundreds of Gods from dozens of religions predating Christianity? How is Paganism less virtuous than Christianity? How is Paganism and less mystical? I mean you think about it, Christianity raped all of these ancient religions. Under the hands of Christians, Pagans were burned and persecuted. Original Norse Paganism was nearly erased from history. In every corner of the world, Judaeo-Christian religions have destroyed the culture (and ironically) the spirit of God from masses.

So which faith is the cancer of humanity? Which faith is the enemy of culture and identity?

I've read that sort of page before, and I've read the whole metaphysics section at montalk, watched all the Spirit Science videos, etc. It's fascinating stuff and, provided that Plato had some real, tangible insight into the 'realm of ideas' apart from his own reasoning. But to me it all comes out as over-extended, metaphysical descriptions of otherwise natural social interactions.

Although collective consciousness is a rather elusive concept for many people, it's way "out there" so to speak. I remember learning about Jung a while back in high school, and I did some research on his theory, it was really dense to me back then, I didn't really get it for another couple years or so. My teacher spent about thirty seconds explaining it, and nobody understood what the hell he was talking about.

I'm not a sociologist, but collective consciousness is a legitimate theory -- but it has very little to do with spirituality. The entire premise of traditional psychology is that humans act in predictable ways towards a variety of stimuli. Add the burden of culture, civilization of society and BOOM you have masses of people subscribing to similar ideals. Those who do not adhere are either casted out or forced to diverge.

But the hallucination of the Mystical Body of Christ involves other people directly, as in a group of people who are in spiritual communion and in communion with God. The mere fact that such a 'hallucination' could be shared across space proves the existence of God.

If there are a group of schizophorenics who all share similar visualizations of the "Mystical Body of Christ," due to sermons from an individual or whatnot, then is it not true that they will most likely hallucinate very similar concepts of God and Christ? The same can apply to individuals too.

I mean how many Christians think that Jesus was a big-nosed, dark-skinned man? Not very many. Most portrayals show Christ as a white man with long hair. In reality, Jesus was more likely to be very tan, very Jew-like and more similar to Arabs/Semetic people than to Europeans.

DiStOrTiOn

07-07-2012, 04:07 AM

In reality, Jesus was more likely to be very...

-fake.

www.jesusneverexisted.com

there is no secular evidence of a person like Jesus existing. The most widely recited "secular evidence" for Jesus are complete hearsay accounts which used the term "christ" instead of the name Jesus, and involved no direct encounter, experience, or knowledge of a person who was anything like Jesus.

The "personal testaments" about a person named and like Jesus all emerged in literature about a full-adult's lifespan after his supposed existence. This is exactly what a group of people would do if they wanted to create a new religious doctrine but didn't want people who actually lived in that area or time to falsify their stories

TheSexyBeast821

07-07-2012, 03:52 PM

I've read that sort of page before, and I've read the whole metaphysics section at montalk, watched all the Spirit Science videos, etc. It's fascinating stuff and, provided that Plato had some real, tangible insight into the 'realm of ideas' apart from his own reasoning. But to me it all comes out as over-extended, metaphysical descriptions of otherwise natural social interactions.

Although collective consciousness is a rather elusive concept for many people, it's way "out there" so to speak. I remember learning about Jung a while back in high school, and I did some research on his theory, it was really dense to me back then, I didn't really get it for another couple years or so. My teacher spent about thirty seconds explaining it, and nobody understood what the hell he was talking about.

I can assure you that Jung was talking about a real metaphysical phenomenon that one can experience and interact with. If you think otherwise then you should read The Red Book.

If I have no weapon to use against you, why take it so personally? Clearly you're pissed that I've used the weapons of logic and reasoning to make you look foolish, even in your own eyes. I guess god can't fill that hole that is the burning rage my logic has left in you... How sad. :(

When you "commune" next, look for signs that god isn't everything you make him out to be. You know, obvious stuff, like this. :XD:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ethlSZ3w1qd5zkno1_250.gif

You mean the logic that made you choose an emotional void instead of feeling full of love and joy? Your logic has failed and mine has prevailed.

Actually. I forgot to mention that point. How do you say that "God" is not Loki, Thor, Ra, Vishnu, Shiva, Mazda or one of the hundreds of Gods from dozens of religions predating Christianity? How is Paganism less virtuous than Christianity? How is Paganism and less mystical? I mean you think about it, Christianity raped all of these ancient religions. Under the hands of Christians, Pagans were burned and persecuted. Original Norse Paganism was nearly erased from history. In every corner of the world, Judaeo-Christian religions have destroyed the culture (and ironically) the spirit of God from masses.

People didn't have direct interaction with the Old Gods. The New God is One that you can experience and verify yourself, not a myth.

I'm not a sociologist, but collective consciousness is a legitimate theory -- but it has very little to do with spirituality. The entire premise of traditional psychology is that humans act in predictable ways towards a variety of stimuli. Add the burden of culture, civilization of society and BOOM you have masses of people subscribing to similar ideals. Those who do not adhere are either casted out or forced to diverge.

The real collective consciousness that Jung wrote about is a metaphysical concept. A real metaphysical concept that you can experience.

If there are a group of schizophorenics who all share similar visualizations of the "Mystical Body of Christ," due to sermons from an individual or whatnot, then is it not true that they will most likely hallucinate very similar concepts of God and Christ? The same can apply to individuals too.

I mean how many Christians think that Jesus was a big-nosed, dark-skinned man? Not very many. Most portrayals show Christ as a white man with long hair. In reality, Jesus was more likely to be very tan, very Jew-like and more similar to Arabs/Semetic people than to Europeans.

Schizophrenia means "split mind" so theoretically anyone whose mind is in communion with another doesn't have a split mind but a whole mind, as communion was the natural state man was created in before the fall of Adam. The image of Jesus is not so important to theology, but the image of Christ (the Mystical Body of) is paramount. Reading the Quran (any part of it) might even paint a better picture of what Christ is due to it's lack of imagery combined with transcendent words.

Zanick

07-07-2012, 04:00 PM

I can assure you that Jung was talking about a real metaphysical phenomenon that one can experience and interact with. If you think otherwise then you should read The Red Book.

I actually have a copy of that right next to me that I've been meaning to get to.

Can you say...

sing-crow-niss-city??? :eek:

keeping with the Jungian theme, haha.

TheSexyBeast821

07-07-2012, 04:16 PM

I actually have a copy of that right next to me that I've been meaning to get to :eek:

Can you say...

... synchronicity?

keeping with the Jungian theme, haha.

Mind you his experiences in that book are mainly symbolic and archetypal of the collective unconscious, and less about the kind of... telepathic experience that collective consciousness can bring about. However, I think the book will change your idea of what personal experience of Divinity can be, and how his idea of God (Abraxas) may be more suitable to your palate than how you traditionally think of God.

Edit: Except when he tries to turn God into a frog. That's just absurd.

Zanick

07-07-2012, 04:25 PM

Mind you his experiences in that book are mainly symbolic and archetypal of the collective unconscious, and less about the kind of... telepathic experience that collective consciousness can bring about. However, I think the book will change your idea of what personal experience of Divinity can be, and how his idea of God (Abraxas) may be more suitable to your palate than how you traditionally think of God.

Edit: Except when he tries to turn God into a frog. That's just absurd.

I don't know how to traditionally think of God anymore, but I have yet to discover the depth of my personal symbolism so I always take advice regarding the topic very seriously. When I'm done with his process (if I can handle it, that is) I expect my head will be thoroughly deconstructed and put back together much more nicely, kind of like getting a new PC and changing the parts I don't need so much for others so that it's cleaner and runs better. We'll see, I suppose.