Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Nostrodumbass

God's 14 bil. years of violence.

228 posts in this topic

Ah, good story Truth007. I shall check that link out.

And the famous James Bond- I am reminded of the final episode of "Mad Men" season 5 and the great Nancy Sinatra Bond song "You Only Live Twice"

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Truth- check the post above your last post- it looks like you are quoting yourself  :D

 

Oh wait- there are 2 "Truthseekers" out there - looks like one is a secret agent   :rolleyes:

As far as I know there are 3 different truth seekers active on this forum. I say the more the merrier!

I'm not not sure Jehova and his angelic mafia appreciate that though!

Edited by TruthSeeker_
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 3:05 AM, Rlyeh said:
On 10/20/2017 at 11:33 PM, TruthSeeker_ said:

I give no more credit to davros' dopamine dogma than a religious fundamentalist who takes the account of genesis literally. Both views transpire ignorance and quite frankly, I prefer to keep running with those who seek the truth and avoid those who have found it.

Seek only truth provided it falls in line with your preconceived beliefs. We saw this when you refused to accept the scientific method and it's impact on the study of the natural universe. Blame the materialists that there is no evidence of God. You're really not that different to these creationists yourself.

I do not understand the comparison of science to religion. I feel, apples and oranges here. My thoughts on that, of course. Here's the thing, and bringing up the word truth. (And if those who know me, I'm a believer, unique in it, but a believer never the less.) Looking at religions and their beliefs and tenets and such, (including in my own) one cannot fully see these things as the full truth, if it hasn't been proven as the full objective proof. Science, I feel one can. 

If using religions, (even my own) and compare it to Davos's dopamine points, I may not feel strongly the same way to Davos's points, but I do entertain the thought, he might have more evidence to prove it, then someone religious's points. (and yes, even my own) I and others might find things like Davos's points disturbing to themselves, (like I might, sorry Davos) but I feel, it's disturbing, because it is more provable a situation and that can be found uncomfortable in it's own. 

The truth is the truth. 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I do not understand the comparison of science to religion. I feel, apples and oranges here. My thoughts on that, of course. Here's the thing, and bringing up the word truth. (And if those who know me, I'm a believer, unique in it, but a believer never the less.) Looking at religions and their beliefs and tenets and such, (including in my own) one cannot fully see these things as the full truth, if it hasn't been proven as the full objective proof. Science, I feel one can.

 

Materialism isn't science to me, at all. It's a worldview. It's the belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. There is no proof of this, no more than religion. It's based on assumptions and reductionist thinking, that since we have made scientific discoveries about the material Universe, everything that exist should be the material world. There can be nothing else, which I think is absolute nonesense. Some people take this view to the level of dogma.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Materialism isn't science to me, at all. It's a worldview. It's the belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. There is no objective proof of this, no more than religion. It's based on assumptions and reductionist thinking, that since we have made scientific discoveries about the material Universe, everything that exist should be the material world. There can be nothing else, which I think is absolute nonesense.

Science has that limitation that it can only examine, well, what it can examine. 

So scientists can't really make any claims about the spiritual. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Ah, good story Truth007. I shall check that link out.

And the famous James Bond- I am reminded of the final episode of "Mad Men" season 5 and the great Nancy Sinatra Bond song "You Only Live Twice"

 

Thanks!:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

The truth is the truth. 

 

Yes, and here's where the subjective trumps the objective and makes needing objective proof irrelevant with so many things, outside of the only place where it must matter objectively, science.

The truth is the truth regardless of proof.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I do not understand the comparison of science to religion. I feel, apples and oranges here. My thoughts on that, of course. Here's the thing, and bringing up the word truth. (And if those who know me, I'm a believer, unique in it, but a believer never the less.) Looking at religions and their beliefs and tenets and such, (including in my own) one cannot fully see these things as the full truth, if it hasn't been proven as the full objective proof. Science, I feel one can. 

If using religions, (even my own) and compare it to Davos's dopamine points, I may not feel strongly the same way to Davos's points, but I do entertain the thought, he might have more evidence to prove it, then someone religious's points. (and yes, even my own) I and others might find things like Davos's points disturbing to themselves, (like I might, sorry Davos) but I feel, it's disturbing, because it is more provable a situation and that can be found uncomfortable in it's own. 

The truth is the truth. 

 

It think the truth is that we really don't know the truth. We have many opinions and ideas but It seems to me almost everything taught to us is inversion of what the reality really is. I could give loads of examples for there are many. Its almost like the old saying if you see a politician's lips moving he is lying.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the replies to the topic I realise that there are some very inteligent and highly informed people here, but I can't help thinking that those qualities may be detrimental to finding truth.

Would someone that can't comprehend advanced scientific theorems, or the complexities of gnosis be less able to have a relationship/understanding of god/s?

Mmm, think about it!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I do not understand the comparison of science to religion. I feel, apples and oranges here. My thoughts on that, of course. Here's the thing, and bringing up the word truth. (And if those who know me, I'm a believer, unique in it, but a believer never the less.) Looking at religions and their beliefs and tenets and such, (including in my own) one cannot fully see these things as the full truth, if it hasn't been proven as the full objective proof. Science, I feel one can.

 

Materialism isn't science to me, at all. It's a worldview. It's the belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

I never mentioned materialism. And I don't get how some seem to label materialism within the science context. 

Science:Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1][2]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

Materialism: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

I do not see how one is the other. 

I'm talking science as being seen as a religion, which I don't, and don't get why some do. 

Quote

There is no proof of this, no more than religion. It's based on assumptions and reductionist thinking, that since we have made scientific discoveries about the material Universe, everything that exist should be the material world. There can be nothing else, which I think is absolute nonesense. Some people take this view to the level of dogma.

Refer to what I posted as the science definition. You seem to talk about materialism, in which I didn't bring up. And science, to me, is different, and something that is not built entirely on faith, which religions are built on mostly. 

6 hours ago, Will Due said:
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

The truth is the truth. 

 

Yes, and here's where the subjective trumps the objective and makes needing objective proof irrelevant with so many things, outside of the only place where it must matter objectively, science.

The truth is the truth regardless of proof.

I strongly disagree. I think, I should have mentioned more here. 

If I put the definition to truth: the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

Let's look at it this way, if someone wants to embark on something and wants to make sure it's true, that means it's true to it being true in it's actual evidence. That means, they would hate to embark on a path, they thought was true, when it's not, if they didn't have evidence. 

When I meant 'truth is truth' that means the truth that has evidence to back it up as truth. To show it to be true for every one, or to make sure it's objective truth, you need evidence to back it up. Someone's subjective truth, more than likely, won't work for everyone. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

It think the truth is that we really don't know the truth. We have many opinions and ideas but It seems to me almost everything taught to us is inversion of what the reality really is. I could give loads of examples for there are many. Its almost like the old saying if you see a politician's lips moving he is lying.

Well, truth to me, is the truth, if it's shown as the truth. I believe in the evidence. If we don't know if it's really true, then it's not entirely true. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nostrodumbass said:

Would someone that can't comprehend advanced scientific theorems, or the complexities of gnosis be less able to have a relationship/understanding of god/s?

I find that an interesting question, even more so, because it's either dealing with someone who uses evidence to get at the truth, and then someone else who sees things spiritually. I think both can have a relationship, it's in the eye of the beholder. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I find that an interesting question, even more so, because it's either dealing with someone who uses evidence to get at the truth, and then someone else who sees things spiritually. I think both can have a relationship, it's in the eye of the beholder. 

The way I see it is that some of us are able to break free from the sea of unknowns and fly up into a spiritual place, while others are left tilling the ground that is evidence based information, trying to grow our trees of knowledge that eventually reach upwards to that same spiritual place. Some are just lost at sea.

Please excuse the symbolism, this just reminded me of Genesis.:D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If using religions, (even my own) and compare it to Davos's dopamine points, I may not feel strongly the same way to Davos's points, but I do entertain the thought, he might have more evidence to prove it, then someone religious's points. (and yes, even my own) I and others might find things like Davos's points disturbing to themselves, (like I might, sorry Davos) but I feel, it's disturbing, because it is more provable a situation and that can be found uncomfortable in it's own. 

The truth is the truth.

If I could change the title of my thread "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It Feels Good"? It would be to "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It's A Motivational Thing". This is because I discovered that Dopamine is related to a wide range of addictive behaviors. 

The neuroscience I bring to the table does not negate a paranormal reality. It does show how fallible people are, can be a perpetual roadblock to themselves, and others.

runrunrun.gif

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davros! You've discovered that human behavior is complicated. At last.

Well done.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 11:08 AM, ChaosRose said:

It is very true that many addicts kick their habits by adopting religious fundamentalism. 

It can be a substitute. 

They simply trade addictions.

Christians often attribute kicking addictions as miraculous proof of their faith. When pointed out that the same thing happens for some converting to Islam, they become tongue tied.

It's the power of the mind. There's secular tools to redirect negative behavior. It's a totally different world from the ancestors we evolved from lived in.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Davros! You've discovered that human behavior is complicated. At last.

Well done.

 

I never doubted it.

Get your paintbrush ready. ;)

603249_original.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nostrodumbass said:
14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I find that an interesting question, even more so, because it's either dealing with someone who uses evidence to get at the truth, and then someone else who sees things spiritually. I think both can have a relationship, it's in the eye of the beholder. 

The way I see it is that some of us are able to break free from the sea of unknowns and fly up into a spiritual place, while others are left tilling the ground that is evidence based information, trying to grow our trees of knowledge that eventually reach upwards to that same spiritual place. Some are just lost at sea.

Well, I could see that in the way you worded it. ;)  :yes:   I don't know, who exactly falls into each category. For me, I do not think it matters how one walks the path of spiritual or knowledge, or both, but either ways, it depends on the person who can do it, and who wants to do it. I fully think, one can do one of the three, two outta three, all three, in the way you described it in blooming out in knowledge. I also think, there are obstacles within each person, and it's how they handle it too. And even within that, it's how a person processes it, or might not want to. I think that it boils down to who goes about it willingly, or doesn't go about willingly. Kind of like how you describe it of them being lost. And if others have a hard time processing it at first, (like me) that might look like they can't, or they have to attempt it again, but is still excited on the promise of knowledge. 

Just wanted to remind that, it's the person, and it doesn't matter what the path is. 

Quote

Please excuse the symbolism, this just reminded me of Genesis.:D

Ok, but as I'm a secular raised individual, (not really knowledge in all of that is Genesis as you put it, I have a different thought in looking at it and being reminded of Genesis. :D  ;)  

6 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

The neuroscience I bring to the table does not negate a paranormal reality. It does show how fallible people are, can be a perpetual roadblock to themselves, and others.

I have always felt that you didn't rule it out. :yes:  (well also, again, it takes me a bit to get the full gist of something, I hope you'll excuse my 'slowness' :o ) I do thank you for saying this. And I agree with you a lot on this. In the way, I see so many fall prey to quick 'stimulation' and think something else. :) 

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Davros! You've discovered that human behavior is complicated. At last.

Well done.

 

gr6O6.gif

3 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Christians often attribute kicking addictions as miraculous proof of their faith. When pointed out that the same thing happens for some converting to Islam, they become tongue tied.

It's the power of the mind. There's secular tools to redirect negative behavior. It's a totally different world from the ancestors we evolved from lived in.

I'm sure, there are many stories, ( I have a lot in my work ) of none-believers who kicked their habits while still staying none-believers. :yes: 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, truth to me, is the truth, if it's shown as the truth. I believe in the evidence. If we don't know if it's really true, then it's not entirely true. 

It also depends on the subject matter. For example we can't see electricity current but we know it is there when you stick your finger in the socket. Now if you are watching the news and an "official source" says GMO food is good for you or give a pregnant woman a flu shot. I have a hard time believing that although it came from a so called official source who say it is a fact. Sometimes evidence can be falsified also in many cases it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

If I could change the title of my thread "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It Feels Good"? It would be to "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It's A Motivational Thing". This is because I discovered that Dopamine is related to a wide range of addictive behaviors. 

The neuroscience I bring to the table does not negate a paranormal reality. It does show how fallible people are, can be a perpetual roadblock to themselves, and others.

runrunrun.gif

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/05/foxsexpert-orgasms-during-childbirth-it-happens.html

Childbirth is painful enough I can only imagine,  What would it be like without that G-Spot?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

t also depends on the subject matter. For example we can't see electricity current but we know it is there when you stick your finger in the socket. 

 Well, that’s the thing. There is the  evidence the truth is there, like your finger in the socket to prove that electricity is true.  And other ways of measuring electricity by scientific means, right?

 Despite thinking about, that it depends on the subject, the subject is always eventually proven with evidence, then yes the subject is true. 

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Now if you are watching the news and an "official source" says GMO food is good for you or give a pregnant woman a flu shot.

 I’m having a hard time understanding the gist of this sentence, it seems unfinished. 

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

I have a hard time believing that although it came from a so called official source who say it is a fact. Sometimes evidence can be falsified also in many cases it is.

 Yes, you have to be concerned where the facts are coming from and that it could be a source that tends to falsify facts.  The point is is, after sources have proven the objective truth, there you go. There’s the truth. I always felt you should always look for facts in more than one place. 

 I believe in the end, it’s the objective facts, the objective evidence, will make the actual truth. You just can’t say, well it could be fake might as well  say it’s the truth because there’s a possibility you won’t find the facts. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stubbly_Dooright

You already told me that you "strongly" disagree that the truth is the truth regardless if there's proof.

I'm a bit surprised that you said that Stubbly.

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

That's what I meant, that just because there's no proof of truth, it doesn't mean something isn't true.

Proof is irrelevant to whether or not the truth is the truth. We're just limited in our knowledge of what's true.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 Well, that’s the thing. There is the  evidence the truth is there, like your finger in the socket to prove that electricity is true.  And other ways of measuring electricity by scientific means, right?

 Despite thinking about, that it depends on the subject, the subject is always eventually proven with evidence, then yes the subject is true. 

 I’m having a hard time understanding the gist of this sentence, it seems unfinished. 

 Yes, you have to be concerned where the facts are coming from and that it could be a source that tends to falsify facts.  The point is is, after sources have proven the objective truth, there you go. There’s the truth. I always felt you should always look for facts in more than one place. 

 I believe in the end, it’s the objective facts, the objective evidence, will make the actual truth. You just can’t say, well it could be fake might as well  say it’s the truth because there’s a possibility you won’t find the facts. 

I really can't disagree with anything you said there. All very good points.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

@Stubbly_Dooright

You already told me that you "strongly" disagree that the truth is the truth regardless if there's proof.

I'm a bit surprised that you said that Stubbly.

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

That's what I meant, that just because there's no proof of truth, it doesn't mean something isn't true.

Proof is irrelevant to whether or not the truth is the truth. We're just limited in our knowledge of what's true.

 

 

I like the point you made that there are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. I would like to elaborate also that there are many things that have been discovered but have been suppressed and kept from the average person. One example is that we already could have free energy but the Morgans and Rockefellers couldn't make money off of free energy so the Tesla technology was suppressed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Will Due said:
4 hours ago, Will Due said:

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

You already told me that you "strongly" disagree that the truth is the truth regardless if there's proof.

I'm a bit surprised that you said that Stubbly.

No, I thought my point was, the truth is the truth, if it's something you can back up to be the truth. (I may have not worded my thoughts here correctly.) I'm just saying that, one can not conclude something is the truth, despite not having the proof. Or, in a more closer thought, or that you cannot dispute it. It's like a rock, tree, a person, weather patterns, etc. will be truth, because it is something that has shown evidence. I don't think my point was that, a truth is the truth, even if there's not enough evidence. I think, to see an example of what I'm trying to say, is that in actually, a rock is a rock. For a rock is actual and provable, and like there's a rainbow, like there's are things that have a 100 percent ration of being provable, despite who sees it. 

If looking at the subject diety, to me, doesn't seem to have the characteristic to have 100 proof. I don't the truth in that. Kind of like, growing up secular, what is truth is a house, cars, food, clothing, furniture, but not religious rules and deities. 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

Well, yes, and this is something I have spoken about. But, I do believe, I have also said, that for things that have the possibility of being true in the future, as things of today have been found to be true today, but not years ago, but I wouldn't negate totally that they didn't exist, but I also didn't state it definitely that they must exist. Like now, I entertain the idea what we can't now, we'll understand tomorrow. But for now, I'm not dismissing them, but can't objectively see it now, either. (And it also matters on how we view them too. ) 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

That's what I meant, that just because there's no proof of truth, it doesn't mean something isn't true.

Proof is irrelevant to whether or not the truth is the truth. We're just limited in our knowledge of what's true.

 

Well, I think we're thinking in two different semantics here. I'm not saying the truth is the truth, so there for I believe. In fact, if I believe or not believe, is irrelevant. The truth, in it all, is the truth. Is various religions and their deities like that? 

I think, it's how one looks at it, and how they want someone else to look at it. (Like not questioning the space floating tea pot is there, or Schrodinger's cat in the box, or being worried over it's existence, but the fact that if they have been proven to be there, then they're there.) But, my point is, I'm going entertain the possibility of the cat or the teapot, but I have no evidence to prove to others. As, it can't be proven to me, if someone else has no evidence. 

Look, one can say, that they have no proof, but they know it as their truth, so I should believe it. No, I don't have to. And a different reverse to that, I don't expect anyone to believe me, if all I have is my subjective proof. I'm trying to point out is, that one can't change around what truth is, if that truth has the possibility to be proven untrue. 

What do you think, Will? Does your truth have the chance of being proven untrue? 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.