902 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

LRW, on 05 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

You have nothing to offer only conjecture built on christendom culture.

Remember what world you are in, billions have been indoctrinated by them.

I am not a Christian, so please stop saying I base my opinions on the Christian faith.

The fact that you continue bringing it up proves you are much more influenced by Christianity than anyone else here.

It's called "projection".

Google that, if you like.

[LRW]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

And what links are you talking about?

Would you call a Blavatsky a Christian? She will turn in her grave, lol.

And the chronology used in science nowadays is called BP, or Before Present.

I think you missed that.

BP? so what? the history system is still based on christendom, they all are especially in the mainstream. Before present to them is still measured by christian calendar. Their date is 1 January 1950 as the origin of the age scale of the BP system. Anything before 1950 is considered BP to them.

1950? that still is christendom calendar.

Balavatsky was a gnostic. She knew the esoteric nature of christianity and its dogma.

I'll ask you a question? when were the great pyramids built? you would probably answer with the chronology invented by christendom.

[Harte]

LRW, on 05 January 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

- post removed -

That's the first bit of truth I've ever seen you post.

Fact is, there can be no debate without at least two perspectives.  All else is just like a collection of bobble-head dolls during an earthquake.

Harte

[Abramelin]

LRW, on 05 January 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

- post removed -

So what calendar do you want to follow? You haven't shown us any alternative yet.

[Harte]

me-wonders, on 05 January 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

What if people just want to have fun?   Science has its place, and I am strong supporter of science, verses religion.  Science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy, and my life is devoted to promoting democracy.   However, today I realized how anti social the science standard can be.  We might even say science is the anti Christ, because those who use the science standard are ignoring the importance of good manners and consideration and being respectful.  A mod came down on me for saying we have become as NAZI Germany, but replacing our liberal education with Germany's education for technology, has had this effect on our culture.  Today, I got the reality of this on a deeper conscious level.  We are no longer being as nice to each other as we once were.   We have become beligerant and intolerant, and this science standard is ruining the fun that some of us came to have.   We use to have a standard based on these 3 social rules....

We respect everyone because we are respectful people.
We protect the dignity of others.
We do everything with integrity.  

I don't know if I am communicating this clearly, but we once a had standard based on good human relationships, and that has been destroyed by a science standard that makes our relationships psychologically and emotionally unsafe.  We fear each other, because we can not trust each other and this is manifesting a very ugly reality.   Our reality is what we make it, and some people are using science as a weapon, and they are ruining our fun and our world, by being mean and not stopping when they are asked to stop.

I've not seen you personally attacked here for speculating.  When a poster comes on here and claims "facts" such as Peruvians vitrified their stones, Peruvians melted huge stones then shaped them, copper can't be used to shape limestone, or Nibiru is real, then you will see the debunking begin.

Many people have knowledge in these areas.  Not many here are experts per se, but they know enough to smell crap when they read it.

I suggest that perhaps you invest too much of your own self-worth in your opinion.  Then, when your opinion is shown to be verifiably false, you take it personally.

As for wanting to be able to speculate, can it not be possible that others also want to speculate, but prefer to do so within the boundaries of what is known to be factual?  What makes your desire to speculate the way you want to more important than others' desires to speculate the way they want to?

Harte

[Abramelin]

me-wonders, on 05 January 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Sorry, but I am leaving.   In the forum there are some places where people are being much nicer, than in the threads where science can be helpful to our understanding of things.   Sticking around and endure abusiveness in hopes of enjoying  the exploration of mysteries that attract us, is like drinking something that makes a person sick, or swimming in river filled with pollution.   We need to get the pollution out, before this is safe and enjoyable place to be.

You want to know, then stick around.

We humans are survivors, despite trolls who need their daily dose of attention.

If you want to experience 'truth', stick around.

If you want people hugging you and calling you great and lovely, then you should indeed visit the more 'spiritual' inclined forums here.

You know, where the likes of us skeptics are hardly allowed to post one sentence that is somewhat critical.

[me-wonders]

LRW, on 05 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

- post removed -

By the way, I am not Christian.  However, the symbolism of Christianity and  other myths as well,  are helpful to our understanding of reality.  The manner of folks in threads that are made better with an understanding of science,  tends to be anti social.  While Christ is the symbolism of love and good relationships.   One does not need to be Christian to appreciate this symbolism, but perhaps one needs to be well educated to understanding it?  What is good about this forum is, more people in the unexplained mystery forum, understand this, than forums that are strictly focused on science.   Those who are closed to all spirituality and are strictly materialistic tend to be close minded and unpleasant people.  Anti Christ.   They manifest an unpleasant reality.

[Abramelin]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

You want to know, then stick around.

We humans are survivors, despite trolls who need their daily dose of attention.

<snip>

Good riddance, and thank you moderator/admin.

[me-wonders]

Harte, on 05 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

I've not seen you personally attacked here for speculating.  When a poster comes on here and claims "facts" such as Peruvians vitrified their stones, Peruvians melted huge stones then shaped them, copper can't be used to shape limestone, or Nibiru is real, then you will see the debunking begin.

Many people have knowledge in these areas.  Not many here are experts per se, but they know enough to smell crap when they read it.

I suggest that perhaps you invest too much of your own self-worth in your opinion.  Then, when your opinion is shown to be verifiably false, you take it personally.

As for wanting to be able to speculate, can it not be possible that others also want to speculate, but prefer to do so within the boundaries of what is known to be factual?  What makes your desire to speculate the way you want to more important than others' desires to speculate the way they want to?

Harte

No I was not personally attacked.   It is the manner of some posters I am objecting to.  I am blown away by the mentally that thinks of everything on a personal level, instead of being aware of the bigger picture.  This thread is unpleasant because of some people's bad manners.

You want to be in the boundaries of what is known and factual?   Fine, there is no such thing as germs.  No one has ever seen a germ, and the bible tells us it is demons who make people sick, and we all know the bible is God's truth.  So let us just forget the non sense about the importance of sanitation.  This message is saying, being too sure of what you think you know, is very foolish.   Being as dogmatic as the church, is not being scientific.  It is being foolish.   Science is not limited to what we know, but a process for discovering what we do not know.  

[Abramelin]

me-wonders, on 05 January 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

No I was not personally attacked.   It is the manner of some posters I am objecting to.  I am blown away by the mentally that thinks of everything on a personal level, instead of being aware of the bigger picture.  This thread is unpleasant because of some people's bad manners.

You want to be in the boundaries of what is known and factual?   Fine, there is no such thing as germs.  No one has ever seen a germ, and the bible tells us it is demons who make people sick, and we all know the bible is God's truth.  So let us just forget the non sense about the importance of sanitation.  This message is saying, being too sure of what you think you know, is very foolish.   Being as dogmatic as the church, is not being scientific.  It is being foolish.   Science is not limited to what we know, but a process for discovering what we do not know.  

The Bible was written by mere humans.

And we DID see germs, with the use of a microscope.

Science evolves, based on the latest findings.

Religion never evolves.


" I am blown away by the mentally that thinks of everything on a personal level, instead of being aware of the bigger picture.  This thread is unpleasant because of some people's bad manners."

You contradict yourself here.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 January 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[Harte]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

The Bible was written by mere humans.

And we DID see germs, with the use of a microscope.

Science evolves, based on the latest findings.

Religion never evolves.

The above is an example of what I was talking about.

A poster claimed no one has ever seen a germ - a verifiably false claim.

Now, if she had stated that germs might have feelings, or intelligence, or even babysitters, there could be no debunking.


Harte

[Abramelin]

Harte, on 05 January 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

The above is an example of what I was talking about.

A poster claimed no one has ever seen a germ - a verifiably false claim.

Now, if she had stated that germs might have feelings, or intelligence, or even babysitters, there could be no debunking.


Harte

I think we should be easy on Me-wonders.

She has her ideas that she loves, and we have our own.

But it appears to me "Me-wonders" didn't do a lot of investigating.

[Harte]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

I think we should be easy on Me-wonders.

She has her ideas that she loves, and we have our own.

But it appears to me "Me-wonders" didn't do a lot of investigating.

My post in response to her was probably the gentlest I've ever been in this forum!

Harte

[questionmark]

Harte, on 05 January 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

My post in response to her was probably the gentlest I've ever been in this forum!

Harte

How was that signature of Jaylemurph again: history is not for sissies? Wonder what became of him.

[Abramelin]

Harte, on 05 January 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

My post in response to her was probably the gentlest I've ever been in this forum!

Harte

It's kind of hard to be gentle and poilite on those who start posting, and obviously never did perform anything resembling research.



.