Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
and haha.. it's fine that you guys "derailed" my thread. I liked the conversation that was going on. So for now on, you guys have my permission to crash hep's threads. Have fun, I'm gonna go find the new thread now.
hatred for being an atheist
- Thread starter Hepheastus420
- Start date
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
Telekinesis or Psychokinesis has never been scientifically proven, has it ?
are you getting confused with telepathy ?
I would of never described being able to move matter with the "power of the mind" a seemingly simple thing.
Have you seen the movie Carrie or read Stephen kings book, or perhaps watched Uri Geller bend some spoons with his mind LOL
peace
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
I actually think some of those mentalist guys might just be EPIC TROLLS that are actually telepathic, that would be hilarious. Either way, the stuff they can do is amazing.
Oh, and when you become rich and stuff, buy me a house and I'll introduce you to two of my friends that can take part in your controlled experiments that demonstrate the capabilities and physics of spirit and what not. Nah Im kiddin, not kiddin about my friends though. Stuff like this will become common knowledge in time, and it will be at just the right time it should happen, so be patient, Im not too worried about it, excited if anything.
Peace my fellow bat-shit-crazy godly bastard.
SeniorFrostyKush
Active Member
Which mentalist guys? Are you talking like Criss Angel and David Blaine? Those guys do some badass illusions, but they REALLY ARE just magicians at the end of the day. Lol, I'm so used to the constant mocking whenever I post in this thread that I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but if you are, then ya that would be pretty fuckin' funny lol. Ironic as fuck too lol.
When did I say that I was gunna get rich and conduct controlled experiments that demonstrate the capabilities of physics and the spirit??? That would be pretty fuckin' cool and all, but it's definitely not in the books as of right now anyways lol. Cept maybe the rich part.
That was either a lame attempt at sarcasm.... or you were actually being serious.
If you are actually being serious though, I would have to say that I agree with you 100% my man. I couldn't have said it better myself. 
Am I your "fellow" bat-shit-crazy godly bastard?..... Or was that a botched attempt at an insult?.... I'm honestly having a hard time determining whether your being sarcastic or not....
(probably because everyone else has been such a self righteous asshole). Anyhow, if you really were being serious about all that stuff, then I'd have to tell you that I appreciate the sentiment wholeheartedly, and I'm totally with you on everything you said homie.
It's gunna take open minded people like us to actually bring about a change in this world. They'll come to terms with it all when it's right there in their faces, but until then, I guess it's just a burden of truth that a select few of us must carry.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
It's simple. if you want your views to be heard, you'll have to refrain from personal abuse. That is all. Feel free to post attacks on atheism, or any other idea, but abusing other members will negate the post.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Don't get all bent out of shape because you have ZERO evidence to support your beliefs and other people are pointing that out to you. If you have support for your beliefs show it, or shut the fuck up because us 'terrible atheists' are going to keep calling your bluff.
You have nothing useful to say. So far it's been, "PEOPLE ARE BEING BIG MEANIES TO ME BECAUSE MY PUBLICLY STATED BELIEFS HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION.... WAAAAAHHHHHH."
You can say 'souls exist' all you want, but we have a ton of evidence that supports other explanations. We can't show they don't exist for certain, but any justification you have for the existence of a soul can be more easily attributed to some natural phenomenon. Our personalities are a product of our brain, and so are our memories, and automatic functions like breathing, etc.,
What exactly does the soul do? Where is it? How do you know it's there? So far, you haven't listed any of its properties. Things that have no properties do not exist.
SeniorFrostyKush
Active Member
For one thing, you didn't even read the comment that he erased..... it really had hardly anything at all to do with atheism or "existence". I was responding to skunkdoc's shit talking. I made it very clear to him and to everyone else, in that very post, that my discussion regarding atheism and "existence" was over and done with. So you can take your whole post and shove it, because your barking up the wrong tree.... again. Maybe you should know a little bit of what your talking about before you go into another misleading, positively affirmative rant. Do you even realize that your taking your own beliefs and labeling them as scientific fact??? Scientific OBSERVATION, is completely different from SCIENTIFIC FACT. Do you really not understand this, or is blatant disregard/ignorance merely a byproduct of your sadly egotistical brain? And btw, it really makes your argument sound that much more credible.... trust me. LMFAO! And how can someone have EVIDENCE to support an explanation??? If you really had evidence, wouldn't it support a FACT??? And you know what... I think I might actually take the time to gather up some so called "proof" for yall to bear witness to..... And of course, I already know that everything that I come up with will automatically be labeled as "non credible" because that is merely the nature of your collective ways. "If it makes us question our lack of belief.... then it will automatically be labeled as NON CREDIBLE!" Yall should put that shit in your footnotes. It's the perfect description of your thought processes. Don't count on me doing this any time soon though. I have a medical condition that pretty much controls my whole life, so the more that I stand here, the less and less I start to make sense, and yes I have to stand at my computer because the vertebrae in my neck are so compressed and out of alignment, that I can't even sit down and look downwards at a screen. So because of that, it only takes me a few hours before I end up exhausted and in excruciating pain, which in turn, affects the validity of the statements that I make. I'm sure you witnessed something similar during our last exchange. So because of all that, it will be quite a while before I embark on collecting some evidence for yall, but nonetheless I will, and I'll make another thread so we can discuss the issue there. And BTW, the comment where I derogatively called Heisenberg an atheist was because the man is on a fucking power trip, and I found it very ironic that an atheist would try to play god. Ironic, not surprising.... Oh, and I wasn't whining about anything but nice try.... I guess you guy's will hear from me when you hear from me.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
what would a thread about theocracy be without a few zealots sticking their thumbs in their ears whining as they run around trying to smash as much as possible
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Yet here you are... lol
I think you mean a positive affirmation? I'm not really sure what you mean by positively affirmative. Sorry.
I'm not sure I should take you as an expert. You didn't know what empirical evidence or a scientific theory was, that doesn't exactly instill a sense of scientific expertise in a person.
An observation is what forms a hypothesis. Then you test the hypothesis to either confirm or deny it.
'Explanation' and 'theory' can be used interchangeably in science. The theory or explanation of gravity can be demonstrated by dropping a pencil. The theory or explanation, of evolution can been demonstrated by watching new forms of resistant bacteria thrive when introduced to antibiotics.
It's not hard to come up with credible sources.
That is complete bullshit. I'm open to new and compelling information, and I've changed my views on many things over the years when legitimate evidence has been presented.
I'm a pretty logical person. I'm not sure you can say the same thing, but we'll see I guess.
Sorry about your condition, that sucks and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I'd like to see your evidence when you're ready to present it.
He's not playing god, he deleted a post that explicitly broke the rules of the forum by using personal attacks.
SeniorFrostyKush
Active Member
Yup, here I am responding to more of your horseshit, who woulda guessed.......
Lmao, no I think you know exactly what I meant by that, but by all means, be petty and childish. Key in on my spelling and grammar all you want, it doesn't mean anything other than the fact that I've once again been standing here for way too long.
Instead of questioning my credibility, why don't you just say what you're really thinking, which is: "your exactly right, even though I'll never admit to it." And I'm gunna go ahead and take a moment to clear this up since your obviously going to refer back to it whenever it's convenient for you. I knew what empirical meant before I had ever even stuck my foot in my mouth by making that remark to Tyler. After seeing him use the word on so many occasions, I decided, on a whim, to look it up so that I could double check it's definition. I did a quick google search, and this is the one sentence definition that I was given:
em·pir·i·cal
adjective
adjective: empirical
1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
By that definition, I concluded that my previous knowledge of what "empirical" meant had been wrong. When I read the definition that I was given, I assumed that "empirical" was a description of evidence based solely on observation. It was a simple mistake. I had already known what the word meant, but I thought that my initial knowledge of the word had been proven to be false. That's why I made that comment. Your right though, definitely "foot in mouth" on that one. As far as "scientific theory" is concerned, I wasn't saying that Tyler didn't know the definition of scientific theory. I simply felt that he was elaborating and expanding on it's actual definition, to which I've been familiar with since elementary school. I've never been remotely confused about what "scientific theory" means. Those are actually pretty good example of what I meant when I said that my condition can sometimes effect the validity of my statements. Not only had I already been going back and forth with you and Tyler for hours by that point, but at that time my legs were also swollen up like balloons, because wouldn't you know it..... I have a heart condition too. Other than my swollen legs, my heart condition plays no role in anything else, so let's just forget that I even mentioned it. So how about we put all of that pettiness to rest, what do you say?
I never said that it's hard to come up with a credible source. On the contrary, it's MORE than easy to come with a credible source. What I said was, that you nor any other atheist in this thread would ever consider ANY source that I reference, or ANY video that I post to be from a credible source. Tyler already gave a long list of sources that he automatically deemed to be non credible, don't you remember? I could post a video showing your own brother moving an object with his mind, and still you'd somehow claim the video to be non credible. That's just a fact homie, if you cant come to terms with that, then I would suggest taking a long honest look within, because your lying to yourself.
Although this statement contradicts everything that I've come to know about you, I'll still play along. I notice how you threw, "compelling" information and "legitimate" evidence, in there to act as your fire escapes. The issue with that statement, is that the only legitimate evidence that would EVER be good enough for you, would be a live demonstration. And even after witnessing it your own eyes, you would still deny reality and it call it a "trick", even if you yourself could not debunk it as such. Whether you want to admit it or not, no evidence will EVER be good enough for you in regards to subjects that you deem to be impossible.
I'm actually a very logical person, the only difference between us, is that YOU deem anything that isn't already written in a science book to be illogical. In your mind, it's UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to think that there are aspects of science that are yet to be understood.
Sounds good, I just hope that you ACTUALLY have an open mind when going over what I have to present, instead of just saying that your open minded.
But how would you know that? You didn't even read my post. For the first time in this thread, I went out of my way to explain myself in a cohesive scientific manner. I didn't personally attack skunkdoc, all I did was make a true statement about our last encounter. If it were still on the page, you'd be able to see for yourself. And regardless, all that he had to do was to erase that tiny little portion of that long ass post, just like all of the other mods do. That shit took me 15 minutes to type out. It was totally a personal attack on me. He didn't want my comments anywhere on his precious atheist thread. I take it that what I had to say, had him actually questioning his own beliefs in some way, and therefore he was going to make sure that NO ONE else ever read my statement. But whatever, I'm over it. Lol, I'm sure he's petitioning to get me banned as we speak, but hey, if I see people abusing their moderator privileges, I'm gunna let 'em know. Oh well though, I'm over it now..... I'm sure he's probably not though.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Nah man, Im legit. Im infamous on this sub forum for my story of my two spiritual buddies. It was quite the spectacle when it was being told, even had Heis lash out at me unprovoked, they dont want this kinda shit spreading and poisoning other peoples minds with our nonsense lol. Most people have their mind made up when its comes to this stuff anyways. When arguing the credibility of these instances it pretty much comes down to a repetitive "Nuh uhh!" and "Yah huh!" kinda discussion that goes nowhere and getting emotional will just give all the more reason for the opposition to strut around victoriously with their peanut gallery hugging their nuts. You get used to it though, friendly discussions with skeptics are definitely possible on this subforum. Just gotta chill out man.Which mentalist guys? Are you talking like Criss Angel and David Blaine? Those guys do some badass illusions, but they REALLY ARE just magicians at the end of the day. Lol, I'm so used to the constant mocking whenever I post in this thread that I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but if you are, then ya that would be pretty fuckin' funny lol. Ironic as fuck too lol.
When did I say that I was gunna get rich and conduct controlled experiments that demonstrate the capabilities of physics and the spirit??? That would be pretty fuckin' cool and all, but it's definitely not in the books as of right now anyways lol. Cept maybe the rich part.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The main difference being that the atheists on this forum wouldn't have any problem changing what they believed if the evidence were objective and verifiable. You, and the other members with similar stories have said right here in black and white that there's nothing that could possibly change your minds.
You say we're too "closed-minded" when we don't accept something like a youtube video as scientific evidence. We say if you base conclusions off a youtube video, you don't understand how science works or what "evidence" means.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Well the evidence is verifiable, if you had the means of meeting these people. Im not too concerned on objectivity because theres probably countless mysterious things about reality (some being experienced often by people) that are real yet are not objective knowledge because the gate keepers of objective knowledge have yet to verify the instances. You mention me being convinced of my experiences like its a bad thing. I remember explaining the details of just one experience to you and I asked you if you'd be convinced of telepathy if that were to happen to you, and you said yes. That was just one experience of many that differ in situation, environment, and circumstances, all bearing the same result. I dont need a group of scientists to point out whats already obvious to me. Fuck me, right?
I understand your skepticism about youtube videos, I havent posted any to try and support my stories, and Im skeptical about those vidoes as Im only completely convinced on telepathy when it comes to those kind of abilities. Except that one video of that guy seemingly lighting paper on fire with his hands, I dont know what to think about that shit.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
Just because you experience something unexplainable, does not mean you can feel free to explain it subjectively. From what you explain you are just experiencing an experience that you cannot show others, or have them experience the same thing in a way that is easy to repeat and show everyone there is no room for doubt... no,
...you are merely giving your own subjective meaning to an experience without one. Then expecting others to take you seriously.
This explains why everyone who has an unexplainable experience, directly attributes the experience to whatever spiritual definition they (at the present moment) are completely set upon. Be it christianity, buddhism, hinduism, or any other religion.
Instead of leaving the experience as is... an experience that you cannot explain how, or why it happened, you feel the urge to give your own, personal, subjective meaning to the experience... changing it from what it was, into EXACTLY what you personally prefer it to be...
...which is EXACTLY what it is not.
...you are merely giving your own subjective meaning to an experience without one. Then expecting others to take you seriously.
This explains why everyone who has an unexplainable experience, directly attributes the experience to whatever spiritual definition they (at the present moment) are completely set upon. Be it christianity, buddhism, hinduism, or any other religion.
Instead of leaving the experience as is... an experience that you cannot explain how, or why it happened, you feel the urge to give your own, personal, subjective meaning to the experience... changing it from what it was, into EXACTLY what you personally prefer it to be...
...which is EXACTLY what it is not.
SeniorFrostyKush
Active Member
Lol, do you ever make any sense??? I don't think the SS&P subforum is for you little guy. I think there's a children's subforum somewhere on here though..... Oh and I'm sure you wont be able to wrap your mind around this, but did ya ever think that maybe people AREN'T confused about what they've experienced. I could see someone attributing a near death experience to "god", but what about an actual physical or mental experience that they CAN fully explain, a phenomenon that HAS an actual name or topic, whether existing within the realms of science, sudo science, or the philosophical? Your whole post is based on the assumption, that no one can explain the experiences that they're having.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
You can explain it, the experience, i can explain the experiences i have had, the spiritual ones... what happened, what i felt, what it was like, what i saw, what i heard....
But what it was? Lol, it took me a long time to figure it out, to figure out that what i thought it was, was exactly that... what i thought it was. What i think it was is not what it is, merely a possibility of what it could have been.
You do not understand my last post because you are in the mindset that you do know what it was, you have given the experience your own subjective definition, rather than leaving it at "I know what i felt, i know what it was like, i know what i saw, i know what i heard, but i am not quite so certain of what it REALLY was."
You make up your own definition, based merely upon the predisposed spiritual ideas you have, which you have borrowed, from others.
It's ok, i did that too for a while... until i became conscious of my own thoughts.
But what it was? Lol, it took me a long time to figure it out, to figure out that what i thought it was, was exactly that... what i thought it was. What i think it was is not what it is, merely a possibility of what it could have been.
You do not understand my last post because you are in the mindset that you do know what it was, you have given the experience your own subjective definition, rather than leaving it at "I know what i felt, i know what it was like, i know what i saw, i know what i heard, but i am not quite so certain of what it REALLY was."
You make up your own definition, based merely upon the predisposed spiritual ideas you have, which you have borrowed, from others.
It's ok, i did that too for a while... until i became conscious of my own thoughts.
SeniorFrostyKush
Active Member
Lol, no I understood your last post in it's entirety........ your just a little bit confused my friend. There's nothing subjective about an experience that CAN be fully explained, and that has an ACTUAL name. You've either experienced a specific type of phenomena, or you can't explain what you've experienced. It's one of the two. It's a ridiculous assumption to think that no one can put a name to what they've experienced. Just because someone has experienced something that YOU don't believe to be real or credible, doesn't mean that person is confused about said experience, leaving them guessing and speculating about what they've just experienced..... LMAO, I wonder how many more times I can fit the word experience into one post.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
You feel free to give any definition to any "spiritual/unexplainable" experience that you have, it is our god given right to do so... yet, all within the understanding...
...that you (and i) may be wrong about the definition you or i give, the definition you or i give will always contain the possibility of being wrong, if you deny that, you deny yourself honesty.
To me, honesty with self, is the highest of all virtues.
...that you (and i) may be wrong about the definition you or i give, the definition you or i give will always contain the possibility of being wrong, if you deny that, you deny yourself honesty.
To me, honesty with self, is the highest of all virtues.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Another trademark lecture from the Z. So its unexplainable just because science hasnt had the opportunity to explain it yet? I cant show others, but my friends can, in a way thats kinda easy (gotta develop a personal connection) and after that it can be repeated many times with different circumstances and controls every time and still get the same consistent result. I only have logical guesses as to how and why these experiences happen, my friends dont even fully understand them, what remains is that they DID happen. And it was established a long time ago that I dont expect you guys to believe me. I wouldnt believe a guy talking about his telekinetic friends in the same way I've been talking about my telepathic friends, I'd just be more open minded to the idea. Im just forced to keep on explaining and explaining because you guys come in and tell me why you are certain that I am mistaken rather than why you THINK Im mistaken. Im just trying to open you to the idea that these types of things could be happening to people in a consistent manner so they can observe whats happening from different perspectives, situations, and circumstances they are happening in thus learning about what is going on rather than explaining it away with what they want it to be like what you THINK is happening (Key word, THINK).
I find the last little bit of your worn out lecture to be a bit ignorant and closed minded. Theres no chance that some of your profound and unexplainable experiences can be attributed to what you think is happening? Thats what Im getting out of that. Also, isnt that how hypotheses and theories start? Hypotheses at least. A scientist observes something amazing and unexplainable and assigns a logical and scientific guess as to whats happening then puts his hypothesis through many different tests and if just one thing doesnt fit then its back to the drawing board. If a scientist had my experiences, should he just leave them alone and not try to figure out whats going on? No, he would investigate those experiences and figure out whats going on like I have. I think you keep repeating this to me because you dont think I investigated at all and just forced my own explanation on it right away. Thats not the case at all my friend. But of course, you only have my word that I put these experiences to the test. Like I said, this whole thing boils down to a "Nuh uhh" and "Yah huh!" type of discussion.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
I am not telling you that your own personal subjective definition of a spiritual experience is not right. I am merely trying to help you understand one simple thought, one simple conscious thought, and idea if you will, that maybe... JUST MAYBE... that definition could contain the possibility of being wrong.
We have the god given right to think whatever the fuck we want about our experiences, but to not doubt them, is one of the most dishonest things you can do in your life. To not doubt, is to not think, and to not think, is to be dead inside. Do not imprison your imagination. Do not deny yourself an infinite amount of possibility in an existence where almost anything is possible...
Do not be so arrogant to think your ideas are right, and everyone else who as a different idea is wrong. Treat all individual ideas the same, treat all individual thoughts the same, treat all individual experiences the same, treat them as they are, as they become. None are truth, they are just imagination manifest into retrospect. All do not, and cannot withstand the scrutiny of doubt.
To doubt your ideas, thoughts and beliefs, is a natural part about being honest with ourselves.
To entertain an idea without excepting it is honesty to it's fullest.
I am not, and will never tell you that you are certainly wrong about whatever belief that you have my friends, only that to deny the possibility that you could be wrong, is to deny honesty with yourself. To some people honesty with self is an easy sacrifice for comfort in an uncertain existence, and i don't blame them one bit.
We have the god given right to think whatever the fuck we want about our experiences, but to not doubt them, is one of the most dishonest things you can do in your life. To not doubt, is to not think, and to not think, is to be dead inside. Do not imprison your imagination. Do not deny yourself an infinite amount of possibility in an existence where almost anything is possible...
Do not be so arrogant to think your ideas are right, and everyone else who as a different idea is wrong. Treat all individual ideas the same, treat all individual thoughts the same, treat all individual experiences the same, treat them as they are, as they become. None are truth, they are just imagination manifest into retrospect. All do not, and cannot withstand the scrutiny of doubt.
To doubt your ideas, thoughts and beliefs, is a natural part about being honest with ourselves.
To entertain an idea without excepting it is honesty to it's fullest.
I am not, and will never tell you that you are certainly wrong about whatever belief that you have my friends, only that to deny the possibility that you could be wrong, is to deny honesty with yourself. To some people honesty with self is an easy sacrifice for comfort in an uncertain existence, and i don't blame them one bit.