User Controls
Life is more interesting without scientific labelings
-
2016-12-14 at 1:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady Yeah I like to believe something made all this shit. It makes more sense than spontaneous creation. Supernatural stuff makes much more sense than the scientific explanation.
I don't believe in evolution. Natural selection is not evolution.
Eg, if your parents are Chinese you will look like a chink. If your parents are tall you will be too.
That is not evolution.
Actually, they're is a reason why chinks have chinky eyes. they are descendent of the people of the mountains during the ice age. the excess of light because of the sunlight bouncing all about the place on the white shiny snow forced them all to chink their eyes like that to reduce the amount of light they received to avoid being blinded. over the thousands years their faces just adapted to be like that.
The theory of evolution was actually portrayed by German priests and philosophers in the 1600, that is, 200 years before Charles Darwin was born. Their belief of the process of evolution began with spiritual evolution. This way, the process of adaptation of beings was actually the result of a metaphysical intelligence. As the spirit became more complex or started to seek a better body for itself so that it could actively explore and express itself with more freedom, evolving from simple chemicals into a bacteria, then into a colony, then into a more complex organism, then into a sea creature, they into a sea creature that could breathe air, then into something like a seal, later a land animal, and ultimately into a hominid, the form with the body most fit for adaptation and intelligent modification, for it can build and use tools etc that it can use as an extension of its body.
Unluckily, very few writings of this were actually published, they mostly remained a secret among religious scholars and those that did remained only known to Germans because nobody but them speaks that fucking language.
When Darwin published his own study he utterly failed to plot a relation between life and spirit. Most probably because he was a nihilist like David Hume and Frans Voltaire. thanks to this, people starting back then started to believe that science and religion opposed one another. Specially because thanks to the Greeks and the Romans, people actually believed the whole Adam and Eve tale was totally literal and that some guy called Adam was made from a mud statue then had a rib ripped off and from it a girl was cloned, when in fact these are only literary figures from a Sumerian poem. Adam means "clay" and "Ewwa" (Eve) means companion. Adam being birthed from clay refers to life emerging from the earth. Eve, his companion, was taken from a rib on the left side of his chest, that means, from his heart; a pretty romantic picture actually. In some translations it is actually explained that God created them in pairs so that they could live each other and never feel alone and thus remember God's mercy through the love they felt for each other. -
2016-12-14 at 3:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Anal Scratch Hemorrage and yet there are people who believe atheism proves intelligence because science can prove there is no God. Folly is their reasoning, because science can't either prove or disprove the existence of a higher being specially when our mind is too short to even know what to look for. all them hipster antichristians who grudge Abrahamic religions because that inherited them from their parents and they have unresolved teenage angst against their parents for not letting them be hardcore still believe the figure of God as it is referred to in the scriptures is what we all came to know with the image of Zeus, which is actually very distant from the original resemblance of the Abrahamic God, which actually has no physical appearance, thus the forbiddance everywhere in the original scriptures from making any form of representation of God or the Angels. making images and figures of God or Jesus or Mary or any of the prophets, angels or devils is strictly forbidden in the Pentateuch, Bible and Quran, yet the Christians constantly violate this because of the polytheistic Roman tradition and all the corruption that Christianity took upon itself from pagan religions in order to attract pagans into converting, thus giving Christianity all the contradictions that make everybody disbelieve.
I think it's funny how religious people treat atheism/science as a competing religion. I don't believe in God, not because anything proves God doesn't exist but the absence of any sort of indication or proof seems to suggest that there is no such thing as God. People who say: Prove God doesn't exist. Are retarded, logically speaking if the only evidence for God's existence is a lack of evidence for him not existing, then you haven't proven anything at all.
Furthermore, if i were to suppose God did in fact exist then i would say science, is the means by which we would understand God's design.
Post last edited by Sophie at 2016-12-14T15:36:25.416075+00:00The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-12-14 at 4:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I think it's funny how religious people treat atheism/science as a competing religion. I don't believe in God, not because anything proves God doesn't exist but the absence of any sort of indication or proof seems to suggest that there is no such thing as God. People who say: Prove God doesn't exist. Are retarded, logically speaking if the only evidence for God's existence is a lack of evidence for him not existing, then you haven't proven anything at all.
Furthermore, if i were to suppose God did in fact exist then i would say science, is the means by which we would understand God's design.
Post last edited by Sophie at 2016-12-14T15:36:25.416075+00:00
If you ever have a spiritual experience would it change your opinion despite lacking objective evidence, or would you believe you just had some sort of wire crossed in your brain? -
2016-12-14 at 4:56 PM UTCYou don't have to accept any of those labels. Color theory.
Just look at a tree and call it a magic nongapon if that makes you happy. -
2016-12-14 at 5 PM UTCBetter not call it a magic nongapon. That's a label.
Hmmm... looks like you are part of the problem instead of the solution. You should be more like Bill Krozby. Get a couple of children and teach them absolutely nothing so their spirits won't be polluted by, ugh "education" and "science". *shivers* -
2016-12-14 at 5:08 PM UTC
The pinnecal of spritual freedom. Seeing the sun for the first time while shitting your diapers at the age of 13.
Fucking labels, maaannn. -
2016-12-14 at 5:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind If you ever have a spiritual experience would it change your opinion despite lacking objective evidence
Probably not. What's more, i wouldn't know what it would take to give me a spiritual experience. I've done my share of psychedelics and have never experienced such a thing. The closest i think i've felt was a deep connection to the Earth, all life and the Universe. But there is nothing magical about that, since we are connected through our shared history. I am a part of the Universe as much as the Universe is a part of me. And we know that almost all life on Earth has a common ancestor if we look back in time far enough, we are made of the chemicals and compounds that make up the Earth and the Earth is made up of chemicals and compounds that were created in Super Novas and nuclear fusion in stars. We are of the Earth and the Earth is of the stars and the stars are of the Universe.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-12-14 at 5:26 PM UTCWaaaaiiit a second, is "science" trying to claim with its fancy "brain scans" and "tests" that the human brain actually needs communication, grammar and labeling to properly form?!
Hahaha... what a bunch of idiots. -
2016-12-14 at 6:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I think it's funny how religious people treat atheism/science as a competing religion. I don't believe in God, not because anything proves God doesn't exist but the absence of any sort of indication or proof seems to suggest that there is no such thing as God. People who say: Prove God doesn't exist. Are retarded, logically speaking if the only evidence for God's existence is a lack of evidence for him not existing, then you haven't proven anything at all.
Furthermore, if i were to suppose God did in fact exist then i would say science, is the means by which we would understand God's design.
Post last edited by Sophie at 2016-12-14T15:36:25.416075+00:00
the absence of evidence? lol are you blind? everything you see and even your own self awareness is evidence enough that there is a creation, even if you believe all of this to be an illusion, such illusion can't come out of nothing, something beyond the illusion itself has to make it be. furthermore as i explained earlier, science has no proof either about how organisms and life and conciseness come to be from mere chemistry. are you then saying none of these exist either? you surely didn't read the part where I said that people who disbelieve only because they have not seen proof of some God dude existing are utterly stupid and have no idea what to look for our what the true nature of God really is? As I mentioned earlier, it's not some really old dude with the power of thunder that lives in the sky like the church made you believe when you were little. That concept of God is a literal corruption of the true character of YHWH (God) put in there by the Romans when the Roman elite adopted Christianity as a religion and mixed it with their own religion to convert the conservatives. You would see that if you ever read a book. At some point, they mix up Jupiter (Zeus) and the Judeo-Christian God YHWH (pronounced "Yaweh") and call him "Joveh", who is still the king of Olympus, son of Jupiter (Cronus) and father of the Gods and humans.
The original concept of God was actually pantheistic. This means it is more of a collective consciousness that composes and is composed of the entire universe as a whole.
oh and by the way, atheism IS a religion. -
2016-12-14 at 6:52 PM UTCreligion its racism
-
2016-12-14 at 7:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Anal Scratch Hemorrage Actually, they're is a reason why chinks have chinky eyes. they are descendent of the people of the mountains during the ice age. the excess of light because of the sunlight bouncing all about the place on the white shiny snow forced them all to chink their eyes like that to reduce the amount of light they received to avoid being blinded. over the thousands years their faces just adapted to be like that.
The theory of evolution was actually portrayed by German priests and philosophers in the 1600, that is, 200 years before Charles Darwin was born. Their belief of the process of evolution began with spiritual evolution. This way, the process of adaptation of beings was actually the result of a metaphysical intelligence. As the spirit became more complex or started to seek a better body for itself so that it could actively explore and express itself with more freedom, evolving from simple chemicals into a bacteria, then into a colony, then into a more complex organism, then into a sea creature, they into a sea creature that could breathe air, then into something like a seal, later a land animal, and ultimately into a hominid, the form with the body most fit for adaptation and intelligent modification, for it can build and use tools etc that it can use as an extension of its body.
Unluckily, very few writings of this were actually published, they mostly remained a secret among religious scholars and those that did remained only known to Germans because nobody but them speaks that fucking language.
When Darwin published his own study he utterly failed to plot a relation between life and spirit. Most probably because he was a nihilist like David Hume and Frans Voltaire. thanks to this, people starting back then started to believe that science and religion opposed one another. Specially because thanks to the Greeks and the Romans, people actually believed the whole Adam and Eve tale was totally literal and that some guy called Adam was made from a mud statue then had a rib ripped off and from it a girl was cloned, when in fact these are only literary figures from a Sumerian poem. Adam means "clay" and "Ewwa" (Eve) means companion. Adam being birthed from clay refers to life emerging from the earth. Eve, his companion, was taken from a rib on the left side of his chest, that means, from his heart; a pretty romantic picture actually. In some translations it is actually explained that God created them in pairs so that they could live each other and never feel alone and thus remember God's mercy through the love they felt for each other.
That's a theory.
With common acceptance.
But it cannot be proven. It is a theory. -
2016-12-14 at 7:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I think it's funny how religious people treat atheism/science as a competing religion. I don't believe in God, not because anything proves God doesn't exist but the absence of any sort of indication or proof seems to suggest that there is no such thing as God. People who say: Prove God doesn't exist. Are retarded, logically speaking if the only evidence for God's existence is a lack of evidence for him not existing, then you haven't proven anything at all.
Furthermore, if i were to suppose God did in fact exist then i would say science, is the means by which we would understand God's design.
Post last edited by Sophie at 2016-12-14T15:36:25.416075+00:00
Yeah God is an unproven theory unless you have experienced divinity. At the same time the existence of or initial creation of matter is outside proven science that we have access to and is also completely theoretical.
Yet these notions have popular acceptance, eg, anti matter theories etc.
God and supernatural makes far more sense than the theories put forward about the creation of the universe.
But because it can't be quantified it is not able to postulated as a scientific theorem. -
2016-12-14 at 7:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Probably not. What's more, i wouldn't know what it would take to give me a spiritual experience. I've done my share of psychedelics and have never experienced such a thing. The closest i think i've felt was a deep connection to the Earth, all life and the Universe. But there is nothing magical about that, since we are connected through our shared history. I am a part of the Universe as much as the Universe is a part of me. And we know that almost all life on Earth has a common ancestor if we look back in time far enough, we are made of the chemicals and compounds that make up the Earth and the Earth is made up of chemicals and compounds that were created in Super Novas and nuclear fusion in stars. We are of the Earth and the Earth is of the stars and the stars are of the Universe.
I personally know of no deeper spiritual feeling then what that realization, that connection, brings to me. In your eyes there may be no magic in that but I think, as I have said before, that is a matter of perspective. I don't think it's stupid or wrong to see the world in different ways as you and I do. Do you believe people who have a genuine spiritual experience have a significantly different brain then you do, or is it something else? -
2016-12-14 at 7:28 PM UTCWhat's a genuine spiritual experience? What's a non genuine one? I have felt one with my surroundings on drugs and not in drugs, at church, at concerts, or alone. How could someone ever have a spiritual experience where they decide it was more than just a good experience and something supernatural? How can you know something is spiritual any more than you know that your dreams are natural despite the non-natural aspect of them?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2016-12-14 at 7:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ What's a genuine spiritual experience? What's a non genuine one? I have felt one with my surroundings on drugs and not in drugs, at church, at concerts, or alone. How could someone ever have a spiritual experience where they decide it was more than just a good experience and something supernatural? How can you know something is spiritual any more than you know that your dreams are natural despite the non-natural aspect of them?
I would say a non-genuine experience would be when someone is lying about it, they made it all up, are not being honest.
I don't believe anything is supernatural, I believe the natural world we live in is a spiritual world, but not everyone will see it that way. -
2016-12-14 at 7:41 PM UTCIsn't a spirit in and of itself supernatural? Does it not discredit spirituality to suggest that it can be attributed to feeling ANYTHING just so long as you're not lying about it? Again I ask why can two people experience the same feelings and one claim to have a spiritual awakening and the other claim to have simply had a really good time?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2016-12-14 at 10:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Isn't a spirit in and of itself supernatural? Does it not discredit spirituality to suggest that it can be attributed to feeling ANYTHING just so long as you're not lying about it? Again I ask why can two people experience the same feelings and one claim to have a spiritual awakening and the other claim to have simply had a really good time?
No, I don't agree a spirit is in and of itself supernatural. I don't believe that would discredit spirituality because as I see it spirituality is a deeply personal and subjective thing. As a metaphor, someone with an unusual fetish might find a regular everyday experience to be sexual. A person without that fetish would not agree that it is sexual. That does not mean that one of those people are wrong, or stupid, rather they just view that experience differently. Similarly people who view an experience as spiritual are not necessarily wrong or stupid, they just view it differently.
Mq, would you label the experiences you refer to as spiritual? Why or why not? Do you think people who have spiritual experiences have differences in their brain? -
2016-12-14 at 10:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Anal Scratch Hemorrage the absence of evidence? lol are you blind? everything you see and even your own self awareness is evidence enough
Stopped reading right there. Was it your mommy and daddy that taught you that? Or was it your priest? Did you also believe your priest when he said "body of Christ" as he rammed his cock into your little boy mouth? -
2016-12-14 at 11:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady Yeah God is an unproven theory unless you have experienced divinity.
Nope, your or my personal experience is called "anecdotal evidence" which is not evidence. -
2016-12-14 at 11:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Stopped reading right there. Was it your mommy and daddy that taught you that? Or was it your priest? Did you also believe your priest when he said "body of Christ" as he rammed his cock into your little boy mouth?
Do you believe people who have spiritual experiences have significant differences in their brains that cause them to view the experiences as spiritual? Or is there another reason they are spiritual?
