What you get is a lot of is...shoot the messenger...not the information.
small minded weaklings... :P
This is an astute point.
I guess he/she who has not ever shot the messenger can cast the first stone.........
What?? No takers? Oh, that's right, we all have been petty and small-minded from time to time, when lacking the maturity to focus on the information, itself. There are no victims here. We're all on the even playing field, and when we step out of line in our minds, and in our thoughts, words and deeds, into the victim/rescuer/persecutor stances, we are imbalancing ourselves and creating the vaccum that draws opposition to us.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I guess he/she who has not ever shot the messenger can cast the first stone.........
What?? No takers? Oh, that's right, we all have been petty and small-minded from time to time, when lacking the maturity to focus on the information, itself. There are no victims here. We're all on the even playing field, and when we step out of line in our minds, and in our thoughts, words and deeds, into the victim/rescuer/persecutor stances, we are imbalancing ourselves and creating the vaccum that draws opposition to us.
Hi Angelica,
That's a very interesting take on it. I wish more intellectuals posted here...I would like to be able admit I'm wrong here a lot more than I do...but I rarely see any information on the MT leading me to this conclusion....hehe. ... But seriously.
I've rarely (if ever) attack any of Ahnimus's posts because they include a great deal of thought and information. I would like to see someone, besides yourself (that's a compliment) that can actually approach the and counter the topic logically. It a very rare occurrence indeed.
It must be a Canadian thing (half joking...maybe...)....
and yes pretty much my entire life people have taken me aside and made note of my perception skills...thanks very much for that compliment btw...(from the Kucinich08 thread) I'll go stick my head in some ice to shrink it back now...lol
but anyhow....to each his own...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
An absolutely astounding performance by Derren Brown. He goes through this elaborate seemingly random series of selecting audience members and having them choose numbers and newspapers and words. Out of "1.6 million" possible words the audience volunteers end up choosing the exact word Brown wanted them to choose. And he asks "Was that fair?" with a unanimous "Yes" from the audience and he replies "No it wasn't" then he shows the audience how he caused them to choose, of their own 'free-will', the exact newspaper, page and word he wanted them to. "It was inevitable"
Just thought you'd find that interesting. I recommend getting your eyes on that performance.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
well ive only read a few of the posts in this thread and only glanced
over the start of this thread.
the universe is a god, yes.
god is energy, both good and evil.
god is this earth.
god is everything.
its life and death that is god.
god is in each of us.
it is all energy.
so many religions ( i dont need to name them, you already know them ) have become contorted, or rather always were.
im no scholar on religion, but to me its comman frickin sence.
so many crusades have and are killing mankind.
no, man isn't kind.
societies, like the one in this country are fucked up.
who can out do their neighbors bullshit.
bigger faster cars, bigger nicer homes, spend more money.
yada yada yada.
and these ppl go to church on a sunday and pray.
thats the craziest pile of shit ever.
ppl who subject themselves to that lifestyle are and will be suffering.
most ppl are in a herd and are followers and they are weak spiritualy.
and with little to no inner peace and lack alot of focus.
alot of plagiarism is more like it. Plagiarism from bullshit sources.
Have you EVER had an original thought? Since you like to cut and paste i've pasted some links for you or anyone who can't see through your schtick to check out. Bottom line: you're full of shit. All piss and vinegar with no actual substance or even originality.
An absolutely astounding performance by Derren Brown. He goes through this elaborate seemingly random series of selecting audience members and having them choose numbers and newspapers and words. Out of "1.6 million" possible words the audience volunteers end up choosing the exact word Brown wanted them to choose. And he asks "Was that fair?" with a unanimous "Yes" from the audience and he replies "No it wasn't" then he shows the audience how he caused them to choose, of their own 'free-will', the exact newspaper, page and word he wanted them to. "It was inevitable"
Just thought you'd find that interesting. I recommend getting your eyes on that performance.
This IS interesting, and brings me to something I learned many years back when I was interested in hypnosis. Also, I read true crime stuff voraciously and ran across legal cases involving hyposis and being led to act against your will:
"Not only can people not be hypnotized against their will and without their cooperation, but also a session is totally useless if they do not, deep in their heart, desire the change." http://www.breakthroughinstitute.com/answers_to_quiz.htm
OutOfBreath has already made this point. There is a difference between the waves on the top of the sea--or the tricks that Derren Brown uses hypnosis to show, and with the deep and still sea that underlies these tricks. One trick a person acts out with hypnosis or suggestions is not out of synch with their will. Even the information that underlies hypnosis tricks are true to fundamentals, such as: even when Derren Brown randomly picks someone on the street 1) you/I may not be aware of the numerous people such tricks don't work on because they are not as suggestible as those for whom they work on. It's not in Derren Brown's best interest to televise what does not work. 2)It looks like Derren Brown has control, but that's because the person is allowing him control for the trick to work. These tricks don't lastingly work in terms of reshaping a person's consciousness or integrity or sense of self.
So while Derren Brown may use tricks that you interpret as poking holes in will, I see it very differently. He is a showman. He is not affecting the integrity of human beings at all. What he is affecting is about as worthwhile and lasting as taking a snip of a person's hair and changing their hairstyle, in terms of how meaningful that is to a person's Being, and true nature.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I've rarely (if ever) attack any of Ahnimus's posts because they include a great deal of thought and information. I would like to see someone, besides yourself (that's a compliment) that can actually approach the and counter the topic logically. It a very rare occurrence indeed.
Thank-you for the compliment, Roland.
Maybe you rarely if ever attack his posts also because you agree with him. I can personally understand why, oh, say, cornnifer, is less likely inclined to support what Ahnimus says. While such anti-God sentiments may be logically presented and informative, they can easily be perceived as slanted, biased or even hostile-y and angrily presented from one with an equally valid faith view. The thing is, from the athiest perspective, a valid faith view does not exist. What this comes down to is different perspectives and ways of processing information.
For example, I have received from Ahnimus, no less, video which talks about brain science that supports and explains spiritual experiences. Ahnimus is very aware of this information. You don't see him posting regarding it and getting the information out, so to speak, though, because it doesn't support his world-view. Also, another video, posted before on this board, by baraka, and by the same well-known neuro-scientist details how spiritual experience through prayer, and through meditation are as anchored in our brain chemistry as any experience anyone of us have at any given time that is considered "real". The neuroscientist himself says these spiritual experiences are considered as real, if not more, than "normal" experience. The reason he says "if not more", is because the participants who experience these experiences say they are more real in experience than normal experiences.
Ahnimus had his reasons for disagreeing with this particular neuroscientist--Andrew Newberg--which brings me back to my point that all our views/experiences and opinions are equal, like it or not. Even though Ahnimus knows this is reputable information and not in dispute, he still likes to call spiritual experience "psychosis" or to label people who have spiritual experience as "insane" when he is frustrated. So what it comes down to is how you look at it. Yes, the truth does exist, but we all have to wade through each other's interpersonal lacks in order to figure out what is valid and what is not.
Firstly this trick had to work on 100% of the audience for it to work. An audience of a few thousand people. All brown did is mix lines like "Choose page 14" "Choose Daily Mail" "Hammer daily a number 14 mail into your head" "Tear around influential" and so on into the show. Then the randomly chosen audience members unconsciously did everything he suggested. I've seen this used by other people as well. I've read 3 books now on how it's done and plan on ordering Brown's book too. It fits into the scientific understanding of the human brain and psychology. If a person hears a number like 7, the neurons fire in their brain and it becomes a more recent thought, it's easier to recall, so it pops back into the mind when asked to think of a number. Their are unconscious indicators of thoughts as well, like minor movements and pupil dilation. So much as holding a person's wrist changes their brain state. He's able to manipulate and know their thoughts through precise kinetics and linguistics. Straight hypnosis may not work on everyone, but the phone booths attract especially suggestive people. Likewise in Brown's Russian Scam he steps back from the person to see if they will step forward and indicate an unconscious willingness to follow his commands. Then he raises his hand to shake, but interrupts the pattern by grabbing the man's wrist, says "your happy to give that to me" then hands him a bottle for anchoring and takes the man's watch and wallet. Similarly the Heist did not work on everyone, but some people actually followed through with it. Some of the techniques are not applicable to everyone if they are as extreme as robbing a bank or handing over all of their belongings. But when it comes to simple suggestions, it works on everyone. In the event that a person knows the trick, then they will choose something else. Brown demonstrates this predictability with guessing which of two envelopes money is in.
I'm not saying you have to share my 'belief', but it seems to me that he's not lying when he reveals what he does as it makes sense to my knowledge of the brain and psychology. It shouldn't take much from there to believe that the entire personality, dependent on the brain and brain alone is subject to the same kind of influence, but is much stronger of a percept or neural network that isn't subverted by simple suggestion. Put someone on drugs and repeat "Kill Robert Kennedy" a hundred thousand times and they will, no bout a doubt it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
... it seems to me that he's not lying when he reveals what he does as it makes sense to my knowledge of the brain and psychology...
Oh, I believe entirely in this stuff, and I know it's completely natural, and that anyone can learn it and replicate the results. It's 100% real.
Remember, though, that Charles Manson, for example, selected his people because they were society's throw aways. He knew they were outcasted and he knew the seeds were sown for a hatred of society and further, for them to do his bidding. He manipulated them based on their already existing flaws, and predispostions towards blame and hatred of society. Or imagine, Americans who are "for" the war, and for killing the "bad guy"--their inherent programming sets the stage for authority to manipulate them to do what they are ALREADY predisposed to do in terms of signing up and killing--It goes WITH their pre-existing will. You don't see the manipulations of the American government manipulating Kabong into signing up to go overseas to kill. Again. the bottom line is the person's willingness to do something in the first place, that must pre-exist.
When you go to a hypnosis show, you are willingly opening yourself up to it. You choose that. You choose the consequences, knowingly, in the name of entertainment. You enjoy the thought and think it will be fun. It's going WITH your will, not against.
My main point is this: Derren Brown can dazzle us with tricks that lead us to believe that the impossible can be done. That's the "show" part of his showmanship. It's what he's good at. But that's what he does--he leads us to believe things that aren't true. When he uses these tricks to "lead us to believe" that he can also manipulate spiritual beliefs, and you believe him, one of two things is happening: either you already believe that to begin with, and you merely agree with him. Or, 2) he's led you to believe something that you are willing to already accept, which is not the same as it being factually true. The key is that he's a master at leading people to believe things. Why not use it to "prove" his own beliefs?
I've seen God. I've got fairly superior "manipulation" skills and am quite psychologically savvy. The bottom line is I literally can't sway anyone who isn't ready or willing to be swayed. If I've influenced anyone in terms of God, or "truth" it's only because they were naturally moving in that direction to begin with, of their own accord. This is why all people are held responsible for what the engage with--we choose what "bait" we take and what we do not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Maybe you rarely if ever attack his posts also because you agree with him. I can personally understand why, oh, say, cornnifer, is less likely inclined to support what Ahnimus says. While such anti-God sentiments may be logically presented and informative, they can easily be perceived as slanted, biased or even hostile-y and angrily presented from one with an equally valid faith view. The thing is, from the athiest perspective, a valid faith view does not exist. What this comes down to is different perspectives and ways of processing information.
For example, I have received from Ahnimus, no less, video which talks about brain science that supports and explains spiritual experiences. Ahnimus is very aware of this information. You don't see him posting regarding it and getting the information out, so to speak, though, because it doesn't support his world-view. Also, another video, posted before on this board, by baraka, and by the same well-known neuro-scientist details how spiritual experience through prayer, and through meditation are as anchored in our brain chemistry as any experience anyone of us have at any given time that is considered "real". The neuroscientist himself says these spiritual experiences are considered as real, if not more, than "normal" experience. The reason he says "if not more", is because the participants who experience these experiences say they are more real in experience than normal experiences.
Ahnimus had his reasons for disagreeing with this particular neuroscientist--Andrew Newberg--which brings me back to my point that all our views/experiences and opinions are equal, like it or not. Even though Ahnimus knows this is reputable information and not in dispute, he still likes to call spiritual experience "psychosis" or to label people who have spiritual experience as "insane" when he is frustrated. So what it comes down to is how you look at it. Yes, the truth does exist, but we all have to wade through each other's interpersonal lacks in order to figure out what is valid and what is not.
Oh I could, and sometimes disagree a lot, but I don't see any reason to make a personal attack on someone who is actually thinking and learning and presenting legitimate information. I do however jump on a fair bit of the mindless idiotic stuff.
Hardly anyone here has the balls to actually say anything or bring forth information and research, other than regurgitate news articles, or make off the cuff comments about the people who do actually post content.
Pretty laughable...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Oh I could, and sometimes disagree a lot, but I don't see any reason to make a personal attack on someone who is actually thinking and learning and presenting legitimate information. I do however jump on a fair bit of the mindless idiotic stuff.
Hardly anyone here has the balls to actually say anything or bring forth information and research, other than regurgitate news articles, or make off the cuff comments about the people who do actually post content.
Pretty laughable...
At the same time....there are different types of intelligence, and I think it's important to respect them all. Unfortunately, we're conditioned to think certain styles are more "intelligent" or productive, etc. It makes me sad that we exalt certain kinds, and completely ignore others. Personality typing shows the strengths in all styles of processing information, whether or not society values such types, or not. Society actually rewards people who are extraverted "judgers", which for example, both Ahnimus and myself are. And really, those traits are what make Ahnimus and my own self opinionated, tenacious and set in our ways, which points to our being often "unrealistic" and close-minded. I appreciate all the people who also see through that, and who know what they know, and don't need to prove it.
And introverts, for example, are not as valued in society, which is at society's loss, because introverts are much more indepth in their knowledge on subjects.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Directly above Sirius in the night sky of Dec 24/25 is the belt of Orion, 3 stars in direct line with Sirius and the Sun, thought to be the three wise men.
And the three great pyramids at Giza are laid out in exactly the same way as the 3 stars of the belt of Orion.
Yeah, no-one else seems to have seen it though, I might give it a thread by itself yet.
I saw it. Top stuff. Reminds me of a blind melon song.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I guess he/she who has not ever shot the messenger can cast the first stone.........
What?? No takers? Oh, that's right, we all have been petty and small-minded from time to time, when lacking the maturity to focus on the information, itself. There are no victims here. We're all on the even playing field, and when we step out of line in our minds, and in our thoughts, words and deeds, into the victim/rescuer/persecutor stances, we are imbalancing ourselves and creating the vaccum that draws opposition to us.
tell me about it, the last time i posted something that goes against the lines of evolution/atheism i got roasted. go figure.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
They're not though. The second image that you've posted here shows that. The position of the middle pyramid and the middle star are off.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
MY PERSPECTIVES ON RELIGION ARE IRREVOCABLY CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THIS TOPIC!
• Born of a virgin on Dec. 25 and as the holy child was placed in a manger
Wrong; born as a result of Zeus' intercourse with the mortal Semele.
• He was a travelling teacher who performed miracles
Wrong; was a demigod who specialised in getting mothers to rip their sons to pieces.
• He "rode in a triumphal procession on an ass"
The hell he did.
• He was a sacred king killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification
...what?
• Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th
...Yeah, he "rose from the dead" before he was born.
• He was the god of the vine
Yes.
and turned water into wine
No.
• He was called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods"
No. He. Wasn't.
• He was considered "The Only Begotten Son", the "Redeemer", "Savior", "Sin Bearer", "Anointed One" and the "Alpha and Omega"
Are you drunk?
• He was identified with the ram or lamb
The same as every other Greek god in the pantheon.
• His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified
WHAT?
I swear. I hate when people spread this anti-religion propoganda bs. And people think people trying to spread people's beliefs are annoying. They clearly haven't dealt with people trying to debunk them.
I just spoke with a Hindu last night who confirmed that he believes Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki on Dec. 25, with 3 wise men following the eastern star.
Ok, you can't pick away at all the similarities, because many will still remain, especially in concern with Quezecoatl and Krishna. So how do you reconcile these similarities with Christianity?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I just spoke with a Hindu last night who confirmed that he believes Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki on Dec. 25, with 3 wise men following the eastern star.
Ok, you can't pick away at all the similarities, because many will still remain, especially in concern with Quezecoatl and Krishna. So how do you reconcile these similarities with Christianity?
That is the most interesting question in the thread. Other than the fact that Dec. 25 means nothing in regard to Quezecoatl or Krishna (who just don't happen to have the same calendar as we do, so all these dates are just approximations fought over by more or less partisan scholars), the striking similarity between religions that aren't supposed to have had any contacts at that time.
It's common knowledge that some of the attributes given to jesus who do not appear in the bible (such as his birthdate) have been selected by the first church to ease the conversion of pagans. Even some parts of the new testament share similarity with greek gods which is understandable (same region), but for a religion on the other side of the world? I find that really strange.
Did you read about the new born shark, born of a virgin mother? It's the first time this is observed in a superior vertebrate.
That is the most interesting question in the thread. Other than the fact that Dec. 25 means nothing in regard to Quezecoatl or Krishna (who just don't happen to have the same calendar as we do, so all these dates are just approximations fought over by more or less partisan scholars), the striking similarity between religions that aren't supposed to have had any contacts at that time.
It's common knowledge that some of the attributes given to jesus who do not appear in the bible (such as his birthdate) have been selected by the first church to ease the conversion of pagans. Even some parts of the new testament share similarity with greek gods which is understandable (same region), but for a religion on the other side of the world? I find that really strange.
Did you read about the new born shark, born of a virgin mother? It's the first time this is observed in a superior vertebrate.
I haven't seen that. But I do have the HHMI.org DVD on Sex Determination. Apparently it's entirely possible to have a virgin birth, also known as parthenogenesis, named after Parthenos 'Virgin' an epithet for the Greek Goddess Athena. However, it is not physically possible for a human female to conceive a human male through parthenogenesis. This is because of the way our genes propogate, females do not have Y chromosomes and can therefor only produce females through parthenogenesis. Other species, particularly some species of worms and lizards, primarily reproduce via parthenogenesis and use a different structure of sex-determination that allows for male offspring via parthenogenesis. It's scientifically impossible in humans.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I haven't seen that. But I do have the HHMI.org DVD on Sex Determination. Apparently it's entirely possible to have a virgin birth, also known as parthenogenesis, named after Parthenos 'Virgin' an epithet for the Greek Goddess Athena. However, it is not physically possible for a human female to conceive a human male through parthenogenesis. This is because of the way our genes propogate, females do not have Y chromosomes and can therefor only produce females through parthenogenesis. Other species, particularly some species of worms and lizards, primarily reproduce via parthenogenesis and use a different structure of sex-determination that allows for male offspring via parthenogenesis. It's scientifically impossible in humans.
I'm pretty sure I told you about this months ago and you laughed at me.
I just spoke with a Hindu last night who confirmed that he believes Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki on Dec. 25, with 3 wise men following the eastern star.
Ok, you can't pick away at all the similarities, because many will still remain, especially in concern with Quezecoatl and Krishna. So how do you reconcile these similarities with Christianity?
I must admit I do not know much about Quezcoatu and Krishna but you are so unforgivably, sickeningly wrong about Bromius that you are going to have to do better than "My Hindu friend said." If you sources regarding Quezecoati are the same as the ones you used for Bromius, then there's no doubt in my mind that its all bull. Seriously, being corroborated by scholars means nothing, as I can guarantee there are scholars who disagree with these claims. My proof here is that there are conflicts and contradictions about every issue. Its laughable to think religion is excluded from controversy. Seriously, if you think you can disprove Christianity by making up inconclusive "facts" that appear similar to other religions than you seriously underestimated our resolve. Any similarities that lie are going to be ultimately superficial. For example, when HUMANS celebrate his birthday, what HUMANS decide to call him, how HUMANS decide to honor him. Why do you expect people of different religions to act, behave, and think differently, just because their beliefs are different.
This doesn't change anything, even if the bogus claims you are making were indeed true. It only proves the consistency of human behavior, as it has nothing to do with disproving religion. Most of what you are attacking is traditions that are man-made, and as a result you are always going to find similarities. I love how people trying to disprove Christianity never attack what Christians truly value the most and that is the ideologies of Jesus. Try disproving "love your neighbor" or "honor your parents" next time rather than when the church decided upon when he was born.
Also, what would help is if next time you used facts that were actually facts.
I'm pretty sure I told you about this months ago and you laughed at me.
That is not true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I must admit I do not know much about Quezcoatu and Krishna but you are so unforgivably, sickeningly wrong about Bromius that you are going to have to do better than "My Hindu friend said." If you sources regarding Quezecoati are the same as the ones you used for Bromius, then there's no doubt in my mind that its all bull. Seriously, being corroborated by scholars means nothing, as I can guarantee there are scholars who disagree with these claims. My proof here is that there are conflicts and contradictions about every issue. Its laughable to think religion is excluded from controversy. Seriously, if you think you can disprove Christianity by making up inconclusive "facts" that appear similar to other religions than you seriously underestimated our resolve. Any similarities that lie are going to be ultimately superficial. For example, when HUMANS celebrate his birthday, what HUMANS decide to call him, how HUMANS decide to honor him. Why do you expect people of different religions to act, behave, and think differently, just because their beliefs are different.
This doesn't change anything, even if the bogus claims you are making were indeed true. It only proves the consistency of human behavior, as it has nothing to do with disproving religion. Most of what you are attacking is traditions that are man-made, and as a result you are always going to find similarities. I love how people trying to disprove Christianity never attack what Christians truly value the most and that is the ideologies of Jesus. Try disproving "love your neighbor" or "honor your parents" next time rather than when the church decided upon when he was born.
Also, what would help is if next time you used facts that were actually facts.
Actually, as stated several times in this thread you clearly did not read, I'm not trying to disprove Christianity with this non-sense. IMO, Mythology is a bad way to wage an attack on Christianity. The field of Neuroscience has proven undeniably that the teachings of Christ are wrong. There is no soul, no spirit, no divinity in human life. As physical constructs in the fabric of reality we do not even drive our own molecules, we cannot have the capacity to choose God or Evil in the manner described by Jesus.
As neuroscientist Christof Koch says in his book The Quest for Consciousness: What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
has died. What do you have to say to them?
Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
with our current scientific world view. What is
clear is that every conscious act or intention has
some physical correlate. With the end of life,
consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.
Meanwhile, theists, try to debate the origin of the universe and the validity of the soul. Even if, these two things could be proven in favor of a cosmic architect, it still does not give any credence to the Christian God. And I can guarantee you that there will be no scientific proof of God, because as Christof Koch has already stated amongst many others, it's not possible with current scientific understanding.
So, no I'm not out to attack Christianity with mythology, that would be a rather weak attack, in my opinion. I consider Christianity a dead myth already.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually, as stated several times in this thread you clearly did not read, I'm not trying to disprove Christianity with this non-sense. IMO, Mythology is a bad way to wage an attack on Christianity. The field of Neuroscience has proven undeniably that the teachings of Christ are wrong. There is no soul, no spirit, no divinity in human life. As physical constructs in the fabric of reality we do not even drive our own molecules, we cannot have the capacity to choose God or Evil in the manner described by Jesus.
As neuroscientist Christof Koch says in his book The Quest for Consciousness: What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
has died. What do you have to say to them?
Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
with our current scientific world view. What is
clear is that every conscious act or intention has
some physical correlate. With the end of life,
consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.
Meanwhile, theists, try to debate the origin of the universe and the validity of the soul. Even if, these two things could be proven in favor of a cosmic architect, it still does not give any credence to the Christian God. And I can guarantee you that there will be no scientific proof of God, because as Christof Koch has already stated amongst many others, it's not possible with current scientific understanding.
So, no I'm not out to attack Christianity with mythology, that would be a rather weak attack, in my opinion. I consider Christianity a dead myth already.
You're right about one thing. I didn't read any of this thread, just the first post. So let me ask you, what is the point of this then? I think you are going after Christianity if you are telling me "reconcile the similarities of Christianity" within these religions. And just like I said before, there's always two sides to every argument, and while you use science to not find proof of religion, I can use it to find proof. Albert Einstein stated that through all of his research that there must be a God since everything is in a complete perfect balance. It comes down to one question, do you believe in chance (and this universe surviving more than a single nanosecond is extremely remarkbly) or do you believe in God? We're going to be going around in circles here, as clearly neither one of us will be budged. I just think if you wish to show us how Christianity is the same as every other "mythical religion" actually use facts and show respect for the largest followed religion in the world today.
You know what? If you're going to be a .... then you can go .... yourself.
Why am I even bothering? :rolleyes:
lol, Jeanie, you came at me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I guess he/she who has not ever shot the messenger can cast the first stone.........
What?? No takers? Oh, that's right, we all have been petty and small-minded from time to time, when lacking the maturity to focus on the information, itself. There are no victims here. We're all on the even playing field, and when we step out of line in our minds, and in our thoughts, words and deeds, into the victim/rescuer/persecutor stances, we are imbalancing ourselves and creating the vaccum that draws opposition to us.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hi Angelica,
That's a very interesting take on it. I wish more intellectuals posted here...I would like to be able admit I'm wrong here a lot more than I do...but I rarely see any information on the MT leading me to this conclusion....hehe. ... But seriously.
I've rarely (if ever) attack any of Ahnimus's posts because they include a great deal of thought and information. I would like to see someone, besides yourself (that's a compliment) that can actually approach the and counter the topic logically. It a very rare occurrence indeed.
It must be a Canadian thing
and yes pretty much my entire life people have taken me aside and made note of my perception skills...thanks very much for that compliment btw...(from the Kucinich08 thread) I'll go stick my head in some ice to shrink it back now...lol
but anyhow....to each his own...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Derren Brown - Something Wicked This Way Comes
An absolutely astounding performance by Derren Brown. He goes through this elaborate seemingly random series of selecting audience members and having them choose numbers and newspapers and words. Out of "1.6 million" possible words the audience volunteers end up choosing the exact word Brown wanted them to choose. And he asks "Was that fair?" with a unanimous "Yes" from the audience and he replies "No it wasn't" then he shows the audience how he caused them to choose, of their own 'free-will', the exact newspaper, page and word he wanted them to. "It was inevitable"
Just thought you'd find that interesting. I recommend getting your eyes on that performance.
over the start of this thread.
the universe is a god, yes.
god is energy, both good and evil.
god is this earth.
god is everything.
its life and death that is god.
god is in each of us.
it is all energy.
so many religions ( i dont need to name them, you already know them ) have become contorted, or rather always were.
im no scholar on religion, but to me its comman frickin sence.
so many crusades have and are killing mankind.
no, man isn't kind.
societies, like the one in this country are fucked up.
who can out do their neighbors bullshit.
bigger faster cars, bigger nicer homes, spend more money.
yada yada yada.
and these ppl go to church on a sunday and pray.
thats the craziest pile of shit ever.
ppl who subject themselves to that lifestyle are and will be suffering.
most ppl are in a herd and are followers and they are weak spiritualy.
and with little to no inner peace and lack alot of focus.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Is being religious in any way about having original thought or even your own mind?
This IS interesting, and brings me to something I learned many years back when I was interested in hypnosis. Also, I read true crime stuff voraciously and ran across legal cases involving hyposis and being led to act against your will:
"Not only can people not be hypnotized against their will and without their cooperation, but also a session is totally useless if they do not, deep in their heart, desire the change." http://www.breakthroughinstitute.com/answers_to_quiz.htm
OutOfBreath has already made this point. There is a difference between the waves on the top of the sea--or the tricks that Derren Brown uses hypnosis to show, and with the deep and still sea that underlies these tricks. One trick a person acts out with hypnosis or suggestions is not out of synch with their will. Even the information that underlies hypnosis tricks are true to fundamentals, such as: even when Derren Brown randomly picks someone on the street 1) you/I may not be aware of the numerous people such tricks don't work on because they are not as suggestible as those for whom they work on. It's not in Derren Brown's best interest to televise what does not work. 2)It looks like Derren Brown has control, but that's because the person is allowing him control for the trick to work. These tricks don't lastingly work in terms of reshaping a person's consciousness or integrity or sense of self.
So while Derren Brown may use tricks that you interpret as poking holes in will, I see it very differently. He is a showman. He is not affecting the integrity of human beings at all. What he is affecting is about as worthwhile and lasting as taking a snip of a person's hair and changing their hairstyle, in terms of how meaningful that is to a person's Being, and true nature.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Maybe you rarely if ever attack his posts also because you agree with him. I can personally understand why, oh, say, cornnifer, is less likely inclined to support what Ahnimus says. While such anti-God sentiments may be logically presented and informative, they can easily be perceived as slanted, biased or even hostile-y and angrily presented from one with an equally valid faith view. The thing is, from the athiest perspective, a valid faith view does not exist. What this comes down to is different perspectives and ways of processing information.
For example, I have received from Ahnimus, no less, video which talks about brain science that supports and explains spiritual experiences. Ahnimus is very aware of this information. You don't see him posting regarding it and getting the information out, so to speak, though, because it doesn't support his world-view. Also, another video, posted before on this board, by baraka, and by the same well-known neuro-scientist details how spiritual experience through prayer, and through meditation are as anchored in our brain chemistry as any experience anyone of us have at any given time that is considered "real". The neuroscientist himself says these spiritual experiences are considered as real, if not more, than "normal" experience. The reason he says "if not more", is because the participants who experience these experiences say they are more real in experience than normal experiences.
Ahnimus had his reasons for disagreeing with this particular neuroscientist--Andrew Newberg--which brings me back to my point that all our views/experiences and opinions are equal, like it or not. Even though Ahnimus knows this is reputable information and not in dispute, he still likes to call spiritual experience "psychosis" or to label people who have spiritual experience as "insane" when he is frustrated. So what it comes down to is how you look at it. Yes, the truth does exist, but we all have to wade through each other's interpersonal lacks in order to figure out what is valid and what is not.
Neuroscientist Andrew Newberg, on mystical experiences, and how they are anchored in our brains, and as real if not more real than any common experience in terms of brain chemistry:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433 (as first posted by baraka)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA(sent to me by Ahnimus)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not saying you have to share my 'belief', but it seems to me that he's not lying when he reveals what he does as it makes sense to my knowledge of the brain and psychology. It shouldn't take much from there to believe that the entire personality, dependent on the brain and brain alone is subject to the same kind of influence, but is much stronger of a percept or neural network that isn't subverted by simple suggestion. Put someone on drugs and repeat "Kill Robert Kennedy" a hundred thousand times and they will, no bout a doubt it.
:rolleyes:
Remember, though, that Charles Manson, for example, selected his people because they were society's throw aways. He knew they were outcasted and he knew the seeds were sown for a hatred of society and further, for them to do his bidding. He manipulated them based on their already existing flaws, and predispostions towards blame and hatred of society. Or imagine, Americans who are "for" the war, and for killing the "bad guy"--their inherent programming sets the stage for authority to manipulate them to do what they are ALREADY predisposed to do in terms of signing up and killing--It goes WITH their pre-existing will. You don't see the manipulations of the American government manipulating Kabong into signing up to go overseas to kill. Again. the bottom line is the person's willingness to do something in the first place, that must pre-exist.
When you go to a hypnosis show, you are willingly opening yourself up to it. You choose that. You choose the consequences, knowingly, in the name of entertainment. You enjoy the thought and think it will be fun. It's going WITH your will, not against.
My main point is this: Derren Brown can dazzle us with tricks that lead us to believe that the impossible can be done. That's the "show" part of his showmanship. It's what he's good at. But that's what he does--he leads us to believe things that aren't true. When he uses these tricks to "lead us to believe" that he can also manipulate spiritual beliefs, and you believe him, one of two things is happening: either you already believe that to begin with, and you merely agree with him. Or, 2) he's led you to believe something that you are willing to already accept, which is not the same as it being factually true. The key is that he's a master at leading people to believe things. Why not use it to "prove" his own beliefs?
I've seen God. I've got fairly superior "manipulation" skills and am quite psychologically savvy. The bottom line is I literally can't sway anyone who isn't ready or willing to be swayed. If I've influenced anyone in terms of God, or "truth" it's only because they were naturally moving in that direction to begin with, of their own accord. This is why all people are held responsible for what the engage with--we choose what "bait" we take and what we do not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Oh I could, and sometimes disagree a lot, but I don't see any reason to make a personal attack on someone who is actually thinking and learning and presenting legitimate information. I do however jump on a fair bit of the mindless idiotic stuff.
Hardly anyone here has the balls to actually say anything or bring forth information and research, other than regurgitate news articles, or make off the cuff comments about the people who do actually post content.
Pretty laughable...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And introverts, for example, are not as valued in society, which is at society's loss, because introverts are much more indepth in their knowledge on subjects.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And the three great pyramids at Giza are laid out in exactly the same way as the 3 stars of the belt of Orion.
http://www.gizapyramid.com/Image357.gif
http://www.gizapyramid.com/Image349.gif
I saw it. Top stuff. Reminds me of a blind melon song.
-C Addison
They're not though. The second image that you've posted here shows that. The position of the middle pyramid and the middle star are off.
-C Addison
• Born of a virgin on Dec. 25 and as the holy child was placed in a manger
Wrong; born as a result of Zeus' intercourse with the mortal Semele.
• He was a travelling teacher who performed miracles
Wrong; was a demigod who specialised in getting mothers to rip their sons to pieces.
• He "rode in a triumphal procession on an ass"
The hell he did.
• He was a sacred king killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification
...what?
• Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th
...Yeah, he "rose from the dead" before he was born.
• He was the god of the vine
Yes.
and turned water into wine
No.
• He was called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods"
No. He. Wasn't.
• He was considered "The Only Begotten Son", the "Redeemer", "Savior", "Sin Bearer", "Anointed One" and the "Alpha and Omega"
Are you drunk?
• He was identified with the ram or lamb
The same as every other Greek god in the pantheon.
• His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified
WHAT?
I swear. I hate when people spread this anti-religion propoganda bs. And people think people trying to spread people's beliefs are annoying. They clearly haven't dealt with people trying to debunk them.
3 Decibels Doubles the Volume
2006
I just spoke with a Hindu last night who confirmed that he believes Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki on Dec. 25, with 3 wise men following the eastern star.
But again, much of Acharya's claims are corroborated by other scholars and expressed here in the wiki article on Dionysus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Parallels_with_Christianity
Ok, you can't pick away at all the similarities, because many will still remain, especially in concern with Quezecoatl and Krishna. So how do you reconcile these similarities with Christianity?
So any sources or should I just take your word for it?
naděje umírá poslední
That is the most interesting question in the thread. Other than the fact that Dec. 25 means nothing in regard to Quezecoatl or Krishna (who just don't happen to have the same calendar as we do, so all these dates are just approximations fought over by more or less partisan scholars), the striking similarity between religions that aren't supposed to have had any contacts at that time.
It's common knowledge that some of the attributes given to jesus who do not appear in the bible (such as his birthdate) have been selected by the first church to ease the conversion of pagans. Even some parts of the new testament share similarity with greek gods which is understandable (same region), but for a religion on the other side of the world? I find that really strange.
Did you read about the new born shark, born of a virgin mother? It's the first time this is observed in a superior vertebrate.
I haven't seen that. But I do have the HHMI.org DVD on Sex Determination. Apparently it's entirely possible to have a virgin birth, also known as parthenogenesis, named after Parthenos 'Virgin' an epithet for the Greek Goddess Athena. However, it is not physically possible for a human female to conceive a human male through parthenogenesis. This is because of the way our genes propogate, females do not have Y chromosomes and can therefor only produce females through parthenogenesis. Other species, particularly some species of worms and lizards, primarily reproduce via parthenogenesis and use a different structure of sex-determination that allows for male offspring via parthenogenesis. It's scientifically impossible in humans.
I'm pretty sure I told you about this months ago and you laughed at me.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I must admit I do not know much about Quezcoatu and Krishna but you are so unforgivably, sickeningly wrong about Bromius that you are going to have to do better than "My Hindu friend said." If you sources regarding Quezecoati are the same as the ones you used for Bromius, then there's no doubt in my mind that its all bull. Seriously, being corroborated by scholars means nothing, as I can guarantee there are scholars who disagree with these claims. My proof here is that there are conflicts and contradictions about every issue. Its laughable to think religion is excluded from controversy. Seriously, if you think you can disprove Christianity by making up inconclusive "facts" that appear similar to other religions than you seriously underestimated our resolve. Any similarities that lie are going to be ultimately superficial. For example, when HUMANS celebrate his birthday, what HUMANS decide to call him, how HUMANS decide to honor him. Why do you expect people of different religions to act, behave, and think differently, just because their beliefs are different.
This doesn't change anything, even if the bogus claims you are making were indeed true. It only proves the consistency of human behavior, as it has nothing to do with disproving religion. Most of what you are attacking is traditions that are man-made, and as a result you are always going to find similarities. I love how people trying to disprove Christianity never attack what Christians truly value the most and that is the ideologies of Jesus. Try disproving "love your neighbor" or "honor your parents" next time rather than when the church decided upon when he was born.
Also, what would help is if next time you used facts that were actually facts.
3 Decibels Doubles the Volume
2006
That is not true.
Actually, as stated several times in this thread you clearly did not read, I'm not trying to disprove Christianity with this non-sense. IMO, Mythology is a bad way to wage an attack on Christianity. The field of Neuroscience has proven undeniably that the teachings of Christ are wrong. There is no soul, no spirit, no divinity in human life. As physical constructs in the fabric of reality we do not even drive our own molecules, we cannot have the capacity to choose God or Evil in the manner described by Jesus.
As neuroscientist Christof Koch says in his book The Quest for Consciousness:
What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
has died. What do you have to say to them?
Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
with our current scientific world view. What is
clear is that every conscious act or intention has
some physical correlate. With the end of life,
consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.
Meanwhile, theists, try to debate the origin of the universe and the validity of the soul. Even if, these two things could be proven in favor of a cosmic architect, it still does not give any credence to the Christian God. And I can guarantee you that there will be no scientific proof of God, because as Christof Koch has already stated amongst many others, it's not possible with current scientific understanding.
So, no I'm not out to attack Christianity with mythology, that would be a rather weak attack, in my opinion. I consider Christianity a dead myth already.
Of course not. I make a habit of lying. :rolleyes:
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I told you the virgin birth of a human male is not possible months ago.
Here are a few examples, going back a few months, where I've repeatedly said it is not possible. Do you have any more self-satisfying lies?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4125405&postcount=357 02-02-2007, 04:38 AM
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4286687&postcount=75 03-23-2007, 06:42 PM
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4199243&postcount=6 02-25-2007, 04:05 AM
You know what? If you're going to be a .... then you can go .... yourself.
Why am I even bothering? :rolleyes:
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
You're right about one thing. I didn't read any of this thread, just the first post. So let me ask you, what is the point of this then? I think you are going after Christianity if you are telling me "reconcile the similarities of Christianity" within these religions. And just like I said before, there's always two sides to every argument, and while you use science to not find proof of religion, I can use it to find proof. Albert Einstein stated that through all of his research that there must be a God since everything is in a complete perfect balance. It comes down to one question, do you believe in chance (and this universe surviving more than a single nanosecond is extremely remarkbly) or do you believe in God? We're going to be going around in circles here, as clearly neither one of us will be budged. I just think if you wish to show us how Christianity is the same as every other "mythical religion" actually use facts and show respect for the largest followed religion in the world today.
3 Decibels Doubles the Volume
2006
lol, Jeanie, you came at me.