PROOF that GOD Exists......

Kite High said:
and that should have ended this dumbass thread...jus sayin
Click to expand...

i attempted to get it through the OP's thick head, but he seemed to deny the existence of dimethyltryptamine, little does he know it exists inside his brain and almost every other organism on this planet. this thread is the product of ignorance, im sure he did some actual research(hopefully not on youtube) after about 20 people told him the same thing i did, realized how ignorant he was, then he ditched his own thread probably feeling like a dumbass for calling everyone's actual proof an "opinion", then proceeded to another thread(maybe another forum) to preach his bullshit about how a basically prolonged, intense dream(honestly just a high dosage DMT trip) is evidence of god's existence. he even posted it on one of my threads, and ditched after we proved him to be wrong. it was pretty funny watching gastanker make a fool out of him though, at least we got a few laughs out of this.
 
Heisenberg said:
Just to play devil's advocate and to test your debate skills, I propose that Science can be a tool of evil as easily as a force of good. Science has revealed many ways in which we could destroy ourselves, it's our collective conscious that caused us to use it for progress. The moral framework for this conscious has been convicted and reinforced by religion. Without these values in place to counter natural shortcomings like hubris, greed, wrath, and sloth, science would destroy our world.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)

It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.

It was not the discovery of black powder that killed, but rather the cannon.

Our destructive nature is ever present. (I personally laugh at people who propose we will be around to witness Type 3 technologies) It is our nature which takes the results of science, and chooses cannons over fireworks and Bombs over medicine.

As for the proposition that Religion has pulled the reins on our nature...Really!? Quite the opposite. Religion allowed a veil to be pulled over peoples eyes. For thousands of years, Science whispered in dark corridors and behind locked doors, while man commited atrocity after atrocity in the name of the Gods. A population that can't argue, is subordinate.

We shall see if the next 800 years sees a return to religion, or science.

And the reason I think they are oil and water, is because a researcher must go into "Atheist mode" in order to record and ponder all the information. With a reservation, information appearing to refute the preconceived notions is discounted. An Atheistic collecting evidence of a "Supernatural" being would be just as exciting, but in anticipation of more knowledge, not a pair of wings.

This about sums it up.

[youtube]KSU2Ya3i7Po[/youtube]

When we discover the origins of the universe, if we haven't evolved passed our current nature, someone will "freak out" and use the discovery to destroy every species on the planet. And maybe a few other species we never discovered.
 
Here's a doosy. I contend that Schizoid behavior is the next evolutionary step. By removing our emotional connection with our universe, we become capable of more. Our need for emotions has expired. The model has changed. We will adapt, or die.
 
afrawfraw said:
I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)

It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.

It was not the discovery of black powder that killed, but rather the cannon.

Our destructive nature is ever present. (I personally laugh at people who propose we will be around to witness Type 3 technologies) It is our nature which takes the results of science, and chooses cannons over fireworks and Bombs over medicine.
Click to expand...

You forgot to respond to the Heisenberg's proposition that religion reinforced our moral framework; you could point out that it was not a necessary condition for religion to reinforce our moral framework. everything religion does to reinforce our moral framework can be accomplished through logical deduction. just to continue the devil's advocacy.
 
eye exaggerate said:
...in drug-induced states of awareness, are there familiar 'signposts' for all who participate? Does everyone see the same imagery?
Click to expand...

No. Imagine Claudio Naranjo's shock when Ott (?) said, "sorry, no jaguars". It was just another chip in the crumbling edifice of Jung. cn
 
afrawfraw said:
Here's a doosy. I contend that Schizoid behavior is the next evolutionary step. By removing our emotional connection with our universe, we become capable of more. Our need for emotions has expired. The model has changed. We will adapt, or die.
Click to expand...

Schizoid behavior is not related to emotional connection. if what you mean by schizoid is irrational then yes, some irrational behavior is solely motivated by emotion but there are other motivators like desire which are not rational as well.
Our need for emotions has not expired, nor will it expire. Social formation is, in part, reliant upon emotional connection.

Edit: Schizoid behavior is related to emotional connection in that those who exhibit schizoid behavior tend to also exhibit a lack of interest in emotional connection or are emotionally cold; my bad.
 
afrawfraw said:
Here's a doosy. I contend that Schizoid behavior is the next evolutionary step. By removing our emotional connection with our universe, we become capable of more. Our need for emotions has expired. The model has changed. We will adapt, or die.
Click to expand...
ingenious thoughts but there is a problem

in your prospect the absence of emotions should lead to logic...however given that the emotionless socio/pyschopath is also not wired for logic process...it is more from a delusion from the detachment than from logic

and logic is boring... emotions are the fire which drives creation in us....

badly wired robots would NOT be evolution but degradation...jus sayin
 
afrawfraw said:
I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)

It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.

It was not the discovery of black powder that killed, but rather the cannon.

Our destructive nature is ever present. (I personally laugh at people who propose we will be around to witness Type 3 technologies) It is our nature which takes the results of science, and chooses cannons over fireworks and Bombs over medicine.
Click to expand...

atomic sciences killed madam curie
 
afrawfraw said:
I appreciate the opportunity. Science may never be used for anything sans objective knowledge. TECHNOLOGY on the other, can be used for "Evil". (I assume you mean actions which violate human rights)

It was not the discovery of atomic sciences that killed, but rather little boy and the fat man.

It was not the discovery of black powder that killed, but rather the cannon.
Click to expand...

It was not the discovery of germs which reduced sickness, but the intentions of those to spread the knowledge and the desire to help others. Science allows us to progress fishing tactics to the point of depleting the oceans, morals tell us it isn't right. Morals were given to us by religion long before science. Science fuels blind progress, religion keeps gluttony in check.

Our destructive nature is ever present. (I personally laugh at people who propose we will be around to witness Type 3 technologies) It is our nature which takes the results of science, and chooses cannons over fireworks and Bombs over medicine.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we are destructive selfish creatures by nature, yet we tend to use science for constructive and altruistic applications. This can only be because religion has engraved in us the values which deter narcissism and foster charity.

(this is of course BS, but you've yet to tell me why)
 
cannabineer said:
No. Imagine Claudio Naranjo's shock when Ott (?) said, "sorry, no jaguars". It was just another chip in the crumbling edifice of Jung. cn
Click to expand...

...Jung's crumbling edifice was his area of study, man :lol:

...seriously though, in introspective 'religion' there are signposts that people witness. Albeit not exactly the same, but carry the same connotations.
 
Heisenberg said:
Exactly, we are destructive selfish creatures by nature, yet we tend to use science for constructive and altruistic applications. This can only be because religion has engraved in us the values which deter narcissism and foster charity.

(this is of course BS, but you've yet to tell me why)
Click to expand...

Afrawfraw posted a somewhat amusing cartoon to respond to this and made a near response in his edit as well, its the same page where you quoted him from...but you don't really need to go look at all that because he doesn't address it.
 
eye exaggerate said:
...Jung's crumbling edifice was his area of study, man :lol:

...seriously though, in introspective 'religion' there are signposts that people witness. Albeit not exactly the same, but carry the same connotations.
Click to expand...

I think part of the trouble is that there seems to be a sort of cognitive continuum between one signpost and the next and ... ultimately its opposite. Imo it's one of the things that makes interpreting dreams and visions so fraught. It's impossible to objectively rule if a vision-element is In or Out in terms of corresponding to a signpost. It's a subset of the problem of falsifiability. cn
 
Heisenberg said:
It was not the discovery of germs which reduced sickness, but the intentions of those to spread the knowledge and the desire to help others. Science allows us to progress fishing tactics to the point of depleting the oceans, morals tell us it isn't right. Morals were given to us by religion long before science. Science fuels blind progress, religion keeps gluttony in check.
Click to expand...
It is the blind progress that leads to the discovery of germs, how they work, how they effect us, and how to control them. Why some choose to help, and others to hate, is a matter of environment. Nature VS Nurture. I find it interesting that an overwhelming number of scientists and professors are Atheists. Does a greater understanding of the universe expell religion? Or does religion prohibit a greater understanding of the universe? I digress.


Heisenberg said:
Exactly, we are destructive selfish creatures by nature, yet we tend to use science for constructive and altruistic applications. This can only be because religion has engraved in us the values which deter narcissism and foster charity.

(this is of course BS, but you've yet to tell me why)
Click to expand...

Because objective reasoning would NEVER lead one to commit crimes unless necessary for survival. Name another condition, besides indoctrined, which would allow you to execute children, To look at a new born and not see just a human, but an abomination?

Cucullus non facit monachum=It isn't because your a preacher that your son is successful. It is because you nurtured him and interacted with him in accordance with Pavlov's hierarchy, Etc. regardless of being aware of it or not. Religious morality is fleeting. Ethical behavior is obvious, and universal. One can not be ethical, and religious. But you can be Ethical without religion. Good enough? As for anyone remarking,"I'm ethical and religious, so there!" Do you believe that treating homosexuals like we treated newly released slaves is ethical? Yaaaa, thaaaaanks.
 
Here's a clear indicator. How do civilizations the world over control large populations? What is coveted? What is shared openly? Why is education not a priority? What happens to a population without education?
 
cannabineer said:
I think part of the trouble is that there seems to be a sort of cognitive continuum between one signpost and the next and ... ultimately its opposite. Imo it's one of the things that makes interpreting dreams and visions so fraught. It's impossible to objectively rule if a vision-element is In or Out in terms of corresponding to a signpost. It's a subset of the problem of falsifiability. cn
Click to expand...


...very true. Most of the reading I've done is by scientists who tread these waters...brave people for sure. What it takes are the ones who are not in it for the Nobel / Cash / Societal prize to reduce falsifiability?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top