The theory of God what is it?

[+Sherapy]

There's no point in flogging a dead horse, repeatedly, then complaining about the cloud of dust and fleas. Give it a rest, Mycroft.

Indeed, if after a few tries there isn't gonna be any progress, it's time to move on.

[Habitat]

Finally, if you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I don't immediately dismiss some of the ideas that Habitat seems to be espousing, although who would know exactly what his position is.

Neither do I "know" what my position is. This is not, as I am at pains to point out, a subject that accomodates precise and exact delineations or explanations. Your continuing impatience with that, is merely a sign that you are more attuned to the rational processes of the mind. Which is not a criticism, just a common fact of life.

[Mr Walker]

But even he may not know the truth, as evidenced by the numerous people who know contradictory truths based on their personal experiences. I wouldn't reject a little gray man just because I haven't encountered one, if I rejected it it would be because testimonials alone aren't really all that reliable, and there is no other evidence for little gray men currently.

True, in part Only he CAN know the truth, but he may not know or understand all of it.

You can't escape the argument that easily, however. Physical experience can always be verified by the use of logic, evidence, analysis and reason, unless a person is mentally ill, and very obviously so..

You can reject the testimonial (as i said you have the right to believe as you wish ) BUT if the alien was real that makes your belief incorrect. Only the person who met the alien CAN have the evidences, contextual reality surrounding the event, and other processes by which to KNOW the creature was real. You can NEVER have these as the y are untrransferrable and so you have a chilce to believor disbeliev The peron who had the encouter has no such freedom.

Two contradictory "truths" held by two people, might be that aliens exist or that aliens do not exist, based on personal experince or lack of esxperince.

Only one can be a physical truth, however. ANyone who has met an actual alien KNOWS the physical truth and what others believe to be true or untrue cant alter that reality.

For example i know "ghosts" are real becasue i have encountered a few, BUT I am open to what sort of physical manifestation a ghost actually is and what causes it. I am also intrigued by the different forms and natures of various ghost forms .Anyone who says ghosts aren't real is badly mistaken but i am happy to debate what ghosts actually are and how humans perceive and sense them. I don't mind a person who doesn't believe in ghosts.That is a logical position for one without experience of them. (but so is believing)

However, if someone says, " i know ghosts aren't real, and so when you claim to have encountered one, you are lying, deluded hallucinating etc" I can only laugh.

Really? How can they KNOW this? It is impossible. Even if they were right, it was only a lucky guess, not evidence based knowledge, allowing for a logical appreciation of the reality . .

[Mr Walker]

Dear Mr Walker,

As you have taken the time to so thoroughly tell me what my true motivations are perhaps I may be allowed a brief response.

You and Habitat both like to spend a lot of time telling everyone else why they are wrong and how they should live their life.

You choose to come to a forum which is specifically designed to have spirituality meet with scepticism to see what synthesis develops. Yet you want a free pass. You want to have your views accepted without question. You want to preach. When your position is in any way questioned the response is that the questioner is too closed minded. or doesn't get it. How very convenient that the proponent who is preaching the veracity of their views is excused from any demonstration or is not required to be the example they are pushing for in others.

I think it is pretty clear whether it is myself or Habitat who is relying on semantics. Others will no doubt have a different view.

It is interesting that you and Habitat seem to suggest I am offended by these views. Why would I be offended that you cannot convincingly make the case for what you are preaching? That feels a lot like projection to me. It is also interesting that you view me asking questions, in a forum designed for that very thing, as an attack. I find that very telling.

Finally, if you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I don't immediately dismiss some of the ideas that Habitat seems to be espousing, although who would know exactly what his position is.

Yes i did, and quite consciously, to point out that you are doing exactly the same thing with habitat. I cant know your motivations. You cant know habitats. see my other post on this.

Your position is based on your own world view and experiences Ours is based on our own. I Am here to tell of my experiences to share them and hear from others . i am open to reinterpretation of meaning but not of occurrence.

From my position i see people l who are really afraid to acknowledge even the possibility that a real powerful and caring god exists, and is able to intervene in our lives.

That is scary stuff to some people, especially the young who have just gained their independence of being. And yet, once properly understood, it is not. It is no more scary than having parents. To me being an orphan would be much more concerning.

I don't expect my position to be accepted but i do expect it to be debated on its merits not via personal attacks on my sanity or character or via group bullying.

Semantics are just that There are personal and culturally/socially accepted "labels of meanings" we attach to words. They vary considerably from mind to mind , for many reasons I think you don't have any idea how habitat is using some words (although they make sense to me) and hence you misunderstand what he is trying to say. Another less charitable perception would be that you know all the meanings full well, but decide to chose a meaning of a word to create a conflict or make a point. .

As you said, I cant know your mind, and thus i cant know your motivation, and whether it is honest or devious.

His position is very clear, if quite complex. My impression was that as you corresponded with habitat you found areas of difference, and concentrated on those in your questions. This always ends up the same way, and I acknowledge i am guilty of the same thing myself . I leave aside the areas of agreeance and concentrate on the areas of disagreement trying to hone down an understanding. Eventually i make someone mad, when really i might agree with 99% of what they are saying, because we argue bitterly over the last one percent.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Holmesian]

There's no point in flogging a dead horse, repeatedly, then complaining about the cloud of dust and fleas. Give it a rest, Mycroft.

Ha. I actually meant there were more people called Holmes outside the Conan Doyle canon but the Mycroft reference made me laugh.

I am not sure if your post to me was a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of a further engagement from me in this thread but in any event I had already resolved in my last post not to bother with what is clearly an exercise in futility. Admittedly I did then respond to Mr Walker however my restraint can only bend so far. If it is of any comfort I don't really intend to respond to anything further from Mr Walker unless it is something insightful we haven't heard a hundred times already over the years. So, yes, I am not expecting to feel the need to respond.

[+Hammerclaw]

Ha. I actually meant there were more people called Holmes outside the Conan Doyle canon but the Mycroft reference made me laugh.

I am not sure if your post to me was a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of a further engagement from me in this thread but in any event I had already resolved in my last post not to bother with what is clearly an exercise in futility. Admittedly I did then respond to Mr Walker however my restraint can only bend so far. If it is of any comfort I don't really intend to respond to anything further from Mr Walker unless it is something insightful we haven't heard a hundred times already over the years. So, yes, I am not expecting to feel the need to respond.

At any rate, while being confounding, Mr Walker never goes out of his way to be particularly unpleasant. What ever else one might think about him, the man's a true gentleman.

[Holmesian]

At any rate, while being confounding, Mr Walker never goes out of his way to be particularly unpleasant. What ever else one might think about him, the man's a true gentleman.

Yes, I never find him deliberately unpleasant.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Yes, I never find him deliberately unpleasant.

I find him to be maybe not be deliberately but carelessly so. He and some other recent posters have a terrible habit of, when confronted with what's the word I'm looking for, oh yea, 'skepticism', resorting to diagnoses of their opponents (you're biased, too afraid, my radical ideas are shaking up your worldview, etc). On it's own it is an utterly lame and possibly condescending 'argument', when repeated ad nauseum, it can be unpleasant and obnoxious.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I don't expect my position to be accepted but i do expect it to be debated on its merits not via personal attacks on my sanity or character or via group bullying.

As I expect positions and opposition not to be confronted without suggestions of bias or close-mindedness or inexperience. Some of your positions, especially concerning your experiences for which you have no evidence to present, leave no one with no merits to debate, there is no evidence; I don't even understand what kind of 'debate' you are envisioning can be had? That you think you have evidence is utterly besides the point; the best anyone can say is, 'maybe, it could be, but you're literally not providing any reason why what you believe is true'; that's a very short debate.

[HalfAnIdiot]

My issue is that all of the active threads were going back and forth with him and have nothing to do with the topics. Make a thread dedicated to him.

+1

See my post defining "Argumentation." This thread topic, as well as many (too many) others seem to follow the same descent into absurd nonsense despite the efforts a certain, select few who try to engage the art of argumentation and debate. And, it isn't difficult to do: 1) Make a debatable claim; 2) Back it with facts in a cogent and coherent manner (logical progressions and cite sources!); 3) Address potential counterpoints; 4) Stay on topic (no personal attacks).

Edited April 14, 2016 by HalfAnIdiot

[Mr Walker]

I find him to be maybe not be deliberately but carelessly so. He and some other recent posters have a terrible habit of, when confronted with what's the word I'm looking for, oh yea, 'skepticism', resorting to diagnoses of their opponents (you're biased, too afraid, my radical ideas are shaking up your worldview, etc). On it's own it is an utterly lame and possibly condescending 'argument', when repeated ad nauseum, it can be unpleasant and obnoxious.

The rationale for this diagnosis comes from two places. First, the form of personal attack which illustrates some deep inner emotional driver, rather than a simple intellectual one So the scepticism is underlain by some deeper psychological reason, otherwise the debate would be restricted to the difference in opinion.

The second is actually compassion. I am often torn in trying to understand the vehemence and vitriol of other posters between pain nastiness and a cruelty of character and the belief that they really don't understand the deep drivers which motivate their own world views Suggesting that they are not motivated by conscious hate or animosity, but by an inner driver is actually me being kind and honest. I would rather think a person was unconsciously driven to anger by fear or a sense of difference, than that they chose it as a response.

For meit It long ago went beyond unpleasant and obnoxious to sometimes defamatory and often slanderous, to be accused of lieing, being deluded, being of limited intelligence, being needy, or seeking attention and validation. Or of deliberate trolling and argumentativeness. Yet when I seek to understand or comment on the reason why some fall back on such personal attacks, that is seen as unfair.

I was once an atheist secular humanist. As you have kindly pointed out, i was brought up as a gentleman, and i would never have said to a believer any of the things which others say to me, even when i thought their beliefs were a quaint anachronism.

I KNOW what a challenge it is to a person's comfortable world view which encompasses non belief especially when this is strongly and deeply embedded in them, to have it challenged by another exerince or view. There are only a few responses possible, but one of those does not HAVE to be fear or anger or ridicule .

Ask your self WHY some people respond with so much emotional content, and such personal comment, about such questions. It doesn't happen over ones preference for the flavour of an ice cream or even more serious views, but challenge beliefs, including non belief, fundamental to how a person has constructed their self image, and its relationship to their world, and people respond from deep inside tha t slef image.

Posters comment that i have become harder and more fixed and less tolerant of others I fear this is the case It has come from the way quite a few individual posters over the years have a resorted to ridicule sarcasm etc to very open honest posts which, as far as i can make them, are totally true. I have become harder and more cynical/ more intolerant BECAUSE of the treatment by a few posters.

At first people argue nicely, trying to change your mind or get you to admit you are wrong deluded or exaggerating. When you maintain your narrative they seem to become frustrated and resort to nastier tactics to stop you speaking. I have almost universally found people n the real world to be nice and pleasant in any debate or relationship. . That might be because i always treat others with respect and politeness.

It might have made me a bit naive and soft to deal with the emotions demonstrated by people on-line when their views and deep beliefs are challenged

[Mr Walker]

As I expect positions and opposition not to be confronted without suggestions of bias or close-mindedness or inexperience. Some of your positions, especially concerning your experiences for which you have no evidence to present, leave no one with no merits to debate, there is no evidence; I don't even understand what kind of 'debate' you are envisioning can be had? That you think you have evidence is utterly besides the point; the best anyone can say is, 'maybe, it could be, but you're literally not providing any reason why what you believe is true'; that's a very short debate.

Then leave it a that, and we can BOTH be content. My gripe is with people who go on to say that all my claims are totally impossible, they know this from their own experience with life, and thus I am clearly lying, hallucinating,deluded, can't perceive reality correctly or trolling etc

Of course some, even many, people don't believe me. That really is not the point, or the problem. That is quite logical and rational Even so it is a wrong belief.

Talk about/discuss the experiences or narratives i claim. Analyse them, debate them, question them, look inside your self to see where your own views and beliefs come form but dont (and i am not speaking of you personally here) respond to dismiss the narrative or claim with ridicule, sarcasm, put downs, or anger/fear driven emotional attacks on me my probity/honesty or motivation.

Then I wont have to try and work out why a poster has the need or is driven to respond in such a way. Disbelief is understandable and acceptable. Personal attack, ridicule, sarcasm etc designed to shut a poster up, or even as an honest/genuine, emotion driven response, is not and does not form part of a useful debate.

For example if someone came here claiming to have encountered big foot i would accept they could not prove this claim and wouldn't be concerned that they could not, but i could engage in an interesting and productive discourse about their encounter and how they perceived and interpreted it , what they saw and felt etc the evidences and contextual realities they used to verify it for them selves as a real physical encounter and not some form of hallucination or misperception. etc. If you simply dismiss any such encounters as impossible, you will never be interested in discussing them, and will, or may, also dismiss the poster as credible, without listening to them and analysing their account.

[Habitat]

+1

See my post defining "Argumentation." This thread topic, as well as many (too many) others seem to follow the same descent into absurd nonsense despite the efforts a certain, select few who try to engage the art of argumentation and debate. And, it isn't difficult to do: 1) Make a debatable claim; 2) Back it with facts in a cogent and coherent manner (logical progressions and cite sources!); 3) Address potential counterpoints; 4) Stay on topic (no personal attacks).

Sorry mate, but "logical" discussions in this matter have proved unproductive forever, because the subject matter lies beyond the bounds of reason and logic. No wonder the natives, including me, get restless !

[psyche101]

Then leave it a that, and we can BOTH be content. My gripe is with people who go on to say that all my claims are totally impossible, they know this from their own experience with life, and thus I am clearly lying, hallucinating,deluded, can't perceive reality correctly or trolling etc

That is simply not the case, your claims defy physics, all known experiments as well as everything we know about the Universe. Because you are ignorant to these factors, you seem to think they do not matter, but they do defy your claims.

For instance. zipping about the Solar system in a night, and taking in the sights. Just to send communications at the speed of light takes 4.5 hours from Pluto. You cannot accomplish what you say you do in a night physically.

And data, everybody in the forum interprets it differently to you, when you finally do supply a link, but you insist everyone is wrong and you right.

Of course some, even many, people don't believe me. That really is not the point, or the problem. That is quite logical and rational Even so it is a wrong belief.

See, there you go again, everyone is wrong, I am right. Why should anyone "believe" that?

And why refuse to prove what you say you can do? How many times have I offered you a simple experiment on a capability you claim to have, and you just pretend you didn't see the post? You claim to have the ability to remote view, but when asked to do so, we get poor excuses, or you just refuse to answer the post. You make the claims, but you never back them up, even when you are offered the opportunity to do so.

If you can make claims, and refuse to stand behind them, why can't people treat them with the same respect that you treat those who offer you the opportunity to fulfil your claims? When you refuse, why do you deserve better than what you recieve?

Talk about/discuss the experiences or narratives i claim. Analyse them, debate them, question them, look inside your self to see where your own views and beliefs come form but dont (and i am not speaking of you personally here) respond to dismiss the narrative or claim with ridicule, sarcasm, put downs, or anger/fear driven emotional attacks on me my probity/honesty or motivation.

Just no. You talk about yourself way too much, and everyone has told you we don't want to hear that. We ask for proof of these wild claims. Honestly, Hollywood is the best source for made up stuff. Your more than obvious tall tales do not further discussion about anything more than yourself, the rest of us are here to discuss subject matter, not your life

Then I wont have to try and work out why a poster has the need or is driven to respond in such a way. Disbelief is understandable and acceptable. Personal attack, ridicule, sarcasm etc designed to shut a poster up, or even as an honest/genuine, emotion driven response, is not and does not form part of a useful debate.

Debate? How is there debate when you are making supernatural claims? How is that reconciled? It is either believe you or not, and the vast majority choose the "not" option, which you seem to deem as somehow unfair when it is the only rational option.

For example if someone came here claiming to have encountered big foot i would accept they could not prove this claim and wouldn't be concerned that they could not, but i could engage in an interesting and productive discourse about their encounter and how they perceived and interpreted it , what they saw and felt etc the evidences and contextual realities they used to verify it for them selves as a real physical encounter and not some form of hallucination or misperception. etc. If you simply dismiss any such encounters as impossible, you will never be interested in discussing them, and will, or may, also dismiss the poster as credible, without listening to them and analysing their account.

Because you like a chat - be honest, soon enough the opportunity will arise so you can talk about yourself again.

In the real world, you would be ripped to shreds. You think I am difficult? LOL. Try the professional arena. What you do not seem to understand is people are not as gullible as they used to be. People do not get on TV claiming to talk to Venusians anymore, and if they do something like that, talk show hosts do not pander to their silly fantasies, they expose them.

For instance - Bigfoot? We live in Australia where it is called a Yowie, and according to descriptions, such an animal just simply could not survive this climate, especially the north where many if not most reports come from. What proves this? Anatomy, it is in fact why Meganthropus died out, as we get bigger, we do not get bigger proportionally, as a result, the skin does not have enough surface area to allow heat to escape from inside the body, so eventually, the organs fail due to excessive heat. If such a creature did exist, it could only exist in Southern regions, and every summer, regardless of location, waterways would have to show evidence of some kind.

None of the above exist. I have even done my own investigations and personally debunked a local rumour of a Yowie, in fact, I built my house in what Aussie Yowie hunters describe as a Yowie "hotspot".

So if, someone did walk up to you and say they saw a Bigfoot, you would know they are either lying or mistaken. Some people hold their conclusions rather personally, and take offence to having their personal mystery resolved, that is where I see your objections to any discussion about your claims comes in.

If you are going to BS people, they will find out in this day and age. And it's not going to be appreciated.

Edited April 15, 2016 by psyche101

[back to earth]

What the ? I don't proclaim "expertise" at all, I indicated that I had the knowledge of the reality of the "beyond" fall into my lap, I was just a witness, not an actor. Did I lay the ground to any extent, that qualified me to be that witness ? I don't know. I certainly don't claim it.

Lets say I 'overreacted' to your use of the term 'true initiate' and me asking you to clarify what gives you the experience to judge what a true initiate is or is not (if you can remember what started this ) . But without you responding back a clear definition of what you meant ... who knows what you meant / mean .

Like use of the term 'initiate' alone it can have a general descriptive term or be a very specific process. Also the term 'true initiates' is a very post Victorian occult term ... quiet snobbish in its use then, it still survives in 'occult' literature based on that Victorian snobbishness and a type of mystical Christianity .... I have heard the term used quiet snobbishly by 'Steiner and Waite Followers', ' Anthroposophists, and in other similar works.

[back to earth]

I find him to be maybe not be deliberately but carelessly so. He and some other recent posters have a terrible habit of, when confronted with what's the word I'm looking for, oh yea, 'skepticism', resorting to diagnoses of their opponents (you're biased, too afraid, my radical ideas are shaking up your worldview, etc). On it's own it is an utterly lame and possibly condescending 'argument', when repeated ad nauseum, it can be unpleasant and obnoxious.

Especially false condescending

[Habitat]

Lets say I 'overreacted' to your use of the term 'true initiate' and me asking you to clarify what gives you the experience to judge what a true initiate is or is not (if you can remember what started this ) . But without you responding back a clear definition of what you meant ... who knows what you meant / mean .

Like use of the term 'initiate' alone it can have a general descriptive term or be a very specific process. Also the term 'true initiates' is a very post Victorian occult term ... quiet snobbish in its use then, it still survives in 'occult' literature based on that Victorian snobbishness and a type of mystical Christianity .... I have heard the term used quiet snobbishly by 'Steiner and Waite Followers', ' Anthroposophists, and in other similar works.

No snobbishness involved here I hope, I used the term in the sense of someone being let in on a secret, or at least being given confirmation of what is a widespread, but unproven belief.

[Mr Walker]

That is simply not the case, your claims defy physics, all known experiments as well as everything we know about the Universe. Because you are ignorant to these factors, you seem to think they do not matter, but they do defy your claims.

For instance. zipping about the Solar system in a night, and taking in the sights. Just to send communications at the speed of light takes 4.5 hours from Pluto. You cannot accomplish what you say you do in a night physically.

And data, everybody in the forum interprets it differently to you, when you finally do supply a link, but you insist everyone is wrong and you right.

See, there you go again, everyone is wrong, I am right. Why should anyone "believe" that?

And why refuse to prove what you say you can do? How many times have I offered you a simple experiment on a capability you claim to have, and you just pretend you didn't see the post? You claim to have the ability to remote view, but when asked to do so, we get poor excuses, or you just refuse to answer the post. You make the claims, but you never back them up, even when you are offered the opportunity to do so.

If you can make claims, and refuse to stand behind them, why can't people treat them with the same respect that you treat those who offer you the opportunity to fulfil your claims? When you refuse, why do you deserve better than what you recieve?

Just no. You talk about yourself way too much, and everyone has told you we don't want to hear that. We ask for proof of these wild claims. Honestly, Hollywood is the best source for made up stuff. Your more than obvious tall tales do not further discussion about anything more than yourself, the rest of us are here to discuss subject matter, not your life

Debate? How is there debate when you are making supernatural claims? How is that reconciled? It is either believe you or not, and the vast majority choose the "not" option, which you seem to deem as somehow unfair when it is the only rational option.

Because you like a chat - be honest, soon enough the opportunity will arise so you can talk about yourself again.

In the real world, you would be ripped to shreds. You think I am difficult? LOL. Try the professional arena. What you do not seem to understand is people are not as gullible as they used to be. People do not get on TV claiming to talk to Venusians anymore, and if they do something like that, talk show hosts do not pander to their silly fantasies, they expose them.

For instance - Bigfoot? We live in Australia where it is called a Yowie, and according to descriptions, such an animal just simply could not survive this climate, especially the north where many if not most reports come from. What proves this? Anatomy, it is in fact why Meganthropus died out, as we get bigger, we do not get bigger proportionally, as a result, the skin does not have enough surface area to allow heat to escape from inside the body, so eventually, the organs fail due to excessive heat. If such a creature did exist, it could only exist in Southern regions, and every summer, regardless of location, waterways would have to show evidence of some kind.

None of the above exist. I have even done my own investigations and personally debunked a local rumour of a Yowie, in fact, I built my house in what Aussie Yowie hunters describe as a Yowie "hotspot".

So if, someone did walk up to you and say they saw a Bigfoot, you would know they are either lying or mistaken. Some people hold their conclusions rather personally, and take offence to having their personal mystery resolved, that is where I see your objections to any discussion about your claims comes in.

If you are going to BS people, they will find out in this day and age. And it's not going to be appreciated.

I have been instructed not to respond to your posts and i assumed you had also been told the same.. However you continue to make statements based on your beliefs which contradict things i know to be true

To take just one point. You claim physics makes many of my claims impossible but of course it does not. Matter transmission, for example, is practical given known physics and only slightly future technology Many of my experiences could be the result of matter transmission. So not impossible at all. Likewise science is demonstrating the practical abilty to remotely transmit mental pictures and sentences albeit in simple form. It is not that i do not know physics but that you dont realise just what is possible within the laws of physics.

We have been over your attempts to test my abilty It works when it needs to work ,to help people in real need . Again you are seeking for me to prove this to you .

You cannot know big foot does not exist. Your conclusions are based on other beliefs about the anatomical requirements of a primate, but you have made my point. You disbelieve and then find reasons why you think your disbelief must be scientific.

Your poster also makes a point for me. It is acceptable, although poor argumentative style, to ridicule an argument. That is critically different to ridiculing the person who presents the argument.

For example a person who believes in creation is not necessarily a fool or an idiot or uneducated or stupid. You can have triple post graduate degrees in physics chemistry and biology and an excellent academic knowledge of the science and STILL believe in a creator god.

Their belief might fit some very important need in their life or psychological make up, and have a very positive function.

ps i dont believe or disbeliev in yowies My father gave a detailed account of something similar he encountered in bush in southern Australia in the 1930s. I don't think he was lieing but i don't know what he and a friend actually encountered. They described a biped about 2 metres tall, which followed them through scrub and out into a clearing where they got a reasonable look at it In his words it was hairy with long curly dark hair all over it, and there was so much vegetation caught in its thick hair that it resembled a leafy sea dragon. It made a loud bellowing sound, much like a cow. I suspect they were mistaken in what they saw, and there have not been other sightings in this area, but it is impossible to say that such a sighting is impossible.

In that era a hoaxer is unlikely but it could have been some other mundane creature. It was real, as both young men witnessed it, and were quite scared by the encounter.

Lastly; if and when a person tells the truth, they never have to be concerned about being "caught out" No one will ever catch me out in a deliberate lie because I don't tell them. I am open to challenges and correction on how i interpret an experience.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Mr Walker

[psyche101]

I have been instructed not to respond to your posts and i assumed you had also been told the same..

Nope, no idea what you are on about.

However you continue to make statements based on your beliefs which contradict things i know to be true

No, you keep getting that wrong, not belief, statements of fact. You deal in belief, I do not. For some reason, you refuse to accept that, yet seem to think that your tales of chatting with God in your backyard or taking joyrides with aliens should be accepted?

I know they are not true, I have weighed up the possibilities based on your information, evaluated that against your own dissection of data, and the only reasonable outcome is it is all made up. That you insist otherwise has no bearing.

To take just one point. You claim physics makes many of my claims impossible but of course it does not. Matter transmission, for example, is practical given known physics and only slightly future technology Many of my experiences could be the result of matter transmission. So not impossible at all. Likewise science is demonstrating the practical abilty to remotely transmit mental pictures and sentences albeit in simple form. It is not that i do not know physics but that you dont realise just what is possible within the laws of physics.

Yes it does, making up sci fi stuff does not help, matter transmit yourself to me here and I will outright apologise to both you in person, and all on the forum. If you can do it, let's see it.

And we can go back and post the original story you told me if you like, that involved a spaceship, not matter transmission.

I do believe I have well and truly repeatedly demonstrated a superior knowledge of physics with regards to yourself.

We have been over your attempts to test my abilty It works when it needs to work ,to help people in real need . Again you are seeking for me to prove this to you .

I am in real need of confirmation of your claims, there you go. Lets see it.

Your conditions that suddenly appear when challenged do not mitigate your original claims.

You cannot know big foot does not exist. Your conclusions are based on other beliefs about the anatomical requirements of a primate, but you have made my point. You disbelieve and then find reasons why you think your disbelief must be scientific.

Yes I can, for both physical and technical reasons, and I can cite an example.

And my conclusions are not based on beliefs, I spent years wandering the field and debunked the Ormeau Yowie. I also personally studied anthropology in my own time and discovered why it is impossible for that anatomy to survive this climate - let alone undetected, nothing to do with belief, facts.

I know you continue to use the word "belief" purely just to irk me too, you are more transparent than you realise.

Your poster also makes a point for me. It is acceptable, although poor argumentative style, to ridicule an argument. That is critically different to ridiculing the person who presents the argument.

Thats is why I took the components of your story to show you what you propose is just not physically possible, your argument is at fault in that you refuse to accept facts and that is where animosity comes in. You take personal insult to not being believed, that is obvious, and logical, they are all stories about you after all. I am not sure who you think you are, but you have no influence here as you may have noticed. That they are "your stories" makes no difference, the same story could come from any anonymous source on the net, and recieve the exact same evaluation.

For example a person who believes in creation is not necessarily a fool or an idiot or uneducated or stupid. You can have triple post graduate degrees in physics chemistry and biology and an excellent academic knowledge of the science and STILL believe in a creator god.

They have a belief, but they do not practise that belief in the lab. That is the difference you refuse.

Their belief might fit some very important need in their life or psychological make up, and have a very positive function.

Yes it might, it also might hurt others, happens both ways every single day. Those who are hurt by relgion should not have to sustain that so that some other people can enjoy it. Like the entire globe having to protect itself from fundamental Islam. I do not care if Islam has 1.2 billion followers, the 50,000 or so dead in the last decade because of it deserve to still be here, but are not, just so some people can seek comfort from an imaginary being. I do not consider that "fair" in any way.

Edited April 15, 2016 by psyche101

[Habitat]

I am feeling put out, psyche 101 hangs on Mr Walker's every word, but has given me the coke and sars !

[Mr Walker]

Nope, no idea what you are on about.

No, you keep getting that wrong, not belief, statements of fact. You deal in belief, I do not. For some reason, you refuse to accept that, yet seem to think that your tales of chatting with God in your backyard or taking joyrides with aliens should be accepted?

I know they are not true, I have weighed up the possibilities based on your information, evaluated that against your own dissection of data, and the only reasonable outcome is it is all made up. That you insist otherwise has no bearing.

Yes it does, making up sci fi stuff does not help, matter transmit yourself to me here and I will outright apologise to both you in person, and all on the forum. If you can do it, let's see it.

And we can go back and post the original story you told me if you like, that involved a spaceship, not matter transmission.

I do believe I have well and truly repeatedly demonstrated a superior knowledge of physics with regards to yourself.

I am in real need of confirmation of your claims, there you go. Lets see it.

Your conditions that suddenly appear when challenged do not mitigate your original claims.

Yes I can, for both physical and technical reasons, and I can cite an example.

And my conclusions are not based on beliefs, I spent years wandering the field and debunked the Ormeau Yowie. I also personally studied anthropology in my own time and discovered why it is impossible for that anatomy to survive this climate - let alone undetected, nothing to do with belief, facts.

I know you continue to use the word "belief" purely just to irk me too, you are more transparent than you realise.

Thats is why I took the components of your story to show you what you propose is just not physically possible, your argument is at fault in that you refuse to accept facts and that is where animosity comes in. You take personal insult to not being believed, that is obvious, and logical, they are all stories about you after all. I am not sure who you think you are, but you have no influence here as you may have noticed. That they are "your stories" makes no difference, the same story could come from any anonymous source on the net, and recieve the exact same evaluation.

They have a belief, but they do not practise that belief in the lab. That is the difference you refuse.

Yes it might, it also might hurt others, happens both ways every single day. Those who are hurt by relgion should not have to sustain that so that some other people can enjoy it. Like the entire globe having to protect itself from fundamental Islam. I do not care if Islam has 1.2 billion followers, the 50,000 or so dead in the last decade because of it deserve to still be here, but are not, just so some people can seek comfort from an imaginary being. I do not consider that "fair" in any way.

If your statement of fact eg " it is physically impossible;e for gods to exist" contradicts something i know to be true, then it cannot be a correct statement of fact, but a belief, or possibly a false statement of fact.

. However to go back to big foot. i was using this as an hypothetical to make a point about how i would react to a person who claimed to have encountered one . I don't believe in yowies or bigfeet but i dont flat out disbelieve they are possible, either, although very unlikely.

There simply IS no science which says something like an orang-utan could not survive in tropical Australia, nor that a 2 metre high Chinese basketballer could not survive in southern Australia. ANd if they can survive in those conditions, then so can other forms of primate. I am not sure what story you refer to, although i have used the example of a person encountering an alien being, as another example of how to respond to such stories.

I've never encountered a grey man but i wouldn't say to someone that, if they made such a claim they were necessarily deluded lying or hallucinating simply because i've never met one.

Unless you have university qualifications in physics and chemistry then i doubt your scientific knowledge is superior to mine. I passed university entrance level physics, chem. and double maths, and i read a lot of scientific journals and magazines.

I don't claim to BE a scientist or to have university training in science, but i do read a LOT of modern scientific material.

I can, and do, hold intelligent conversations with my nephews and nieces who hold qualifications such as an honours degree (working on a doctorate) in nuclear molecular biology and an ongoing university education in environmental law requiring 3 years of law and 3 years of environmental sciences followed by post graduate specialisation. .

iI is an error to judge a person's knowledge or education by what you see as the 'crack pot ' beliefs they hold, or by the unusual experiences they have encountered I was trained in scientific method both at school and at university, ( (Particularly in elements of physical geography)and in the statistical skills needed to evaluate and assess findings . .

Edited April 15, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Saru]

Back on topic please

We are seeing far too many threads in the spirituality boards being derailed and turned in to discussions about other members and as a result it has been producing a lot of unnecessary drama on the forums over the last few days.

If you feel someone else is acting inappropriately please use the "report" button, don't engage them in an argument. Similarly, deriding others or attempting to psycho-analyze them due to their beliefs ( or lack thereof ) is not acceptable behavior.

Let's keep this thread ( and this section ) constructive and on-topic please.

[back to earth]

God is a projection and personification of the mores and taboos of a society ... a type of super ego of 'anima mundi' .

tribal deities (like Jehovah ) reflect tribal law ; it is strict, breaking it means punishment and retribution is often swift and merciless .

As the society develops, this can moderate a bit , the society becomes more stable and has solved a lot of its basic survival problems , the mores and taboos, superego, egregore, personification / projection, can morph accordingly - in this case , into the concept of 'Jesus' .

[Mr Walker]

God is a projection and personification of the mores and taboos of a society ... a type of super ego of 'anima mundi' .

tribal deities (like Jehovah ) reflect tribal law ; it is strict, breaking it means punishment and retribution is often swift and merciless .

As the society develops, this can moderate a bit , the society becomes more stable and has solved a lot of its basic survival problems , the mores and taboos, superego, egregore, personification / projection, can morph accordingly - in this case , into the concept of 'Jesus' .

This very true but it is not the whole truth A human's relationship with gods can come from two sources. A construction of belief OR a personal experience with such a god.

Construction of personal belief remains almost universal in humanity, personal experience with gods (or jungian archetypes even) apparently less so.

In both cases, how a person interprets or perceives this god, and his relationship to it, will necessarily occur within that person's scientific, cultural and other understandings. So the general perception of gods is modified over the period of human history as our scientific knowledge and our social constructs ( family structure, clan networks, role of women, etc., evolve.)

The interesting thing is the differential in POWER generated by the two forms of relationship.

A person who believes via fait not jus tin the existence of god, but in the righteousness of its teachings, may have such a strong inner driver that the y will attempt and achieve almost anything in the name of that faith

A person who knows god as a real being is not so motivated or driven Reality/ knowledge is a less powerful driver than faith/ belief, perhaps because it is more prosaic.

If i really believe in god i have to do what he tells me to, but if i meet god and he tells me to do something, I am under no inner compulsion to do as he asks.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Mr Walker