A True Prophet

[riobikini]

re:

 

Moai: "..most people would think that if you talk to invisible beings that you are deluded. "

 

As long as you touched on the topic, my understanding of Spirit-to-Form Beings:

 

If it (the Being) has great enough power to exist, it should also have the power to exist in any form it chooses.

 

The selection of form is for *specific* purpose -pointing out that something is about to be accomplished that *requires* the use of a recognized form.

 

This whole idea might be considered a fair example of what is meant when we say, in regards to humans and our connected "spirit"," The Human Doing is equally important as the Human Being."

 

-Rio

[Moai]

of course not. but then angels and demons are the tip of the iceberg. it's like saying is there a branch of medicine that's dedicated to the strange whooshy feeling you get if you stand up too quickly. no there isn't, it would be part of a range of phenomena explored by neurologists, i would imagine. however, there is exploration at the subatomic level of how energy becomes matter, which i supposed could be defined as exploring how things that are not seen, become seen, and is therefore interested in the phenomena of that which is unseen.

 

The sub-atomic world does not "become seen." It is always there, and always visible, just not by us because it is so fantastically small. We know it is there because we have a theory we can use to predict things about it. And those predictions turn out to be right, all the time. I think quantum theory is the only one in science that has never been wrong. I have read that we understand the quantum world better than we do the one we inhabit, actually. And I have yet to read one person working in the field postulate demons or angels, or vibrations becoming matter.

 

 

let us look at this. first of all, the belief has to be proved to be false. now there are beliefs that can be proved to be false, such as the belief the moon is made of green cheese. however, the belief in angels has not been proved to be false, it has simply not been proved to be true. therefore, by the rationale you've chosen, it does not come under the dictionary definition of the word 'delusion'. the question of the existence of angels is therefore, a question without an answer. provably neither true or false.

 

It has been shown to be false, you just won't accept it. Also, you change the meaning of what a demon is and what its properties are in order to keep the belief in them. This is what is known as an "ad hoc explanation." In the Bible, for example, Jesus comes upon a little girl who is demon possessed. She is there, freaking out, and her father is worried. Jesus casts the demons into a group of pigs, who then run into the water and drown themselves.

 

This little story illustrates a few things: 1) that demons exist; 2) that demons cause illness, or at the very least strange behavior; 3) that demons can inhabit animals; and 4) that they can die by drowning.

 

Why is it that demons do not cause sickness anymore? How come if that girl were alive today she would be given medical treatment and medication, and demons would not even be considered? I'll answer that for you: because we know that demons are imaginary, and that they are not what makes people sick. This cannot be refuted. But for some reason you (and others) really want demons and angels to be there, so you change what it means to be a demon. This has been going on for quite a while, and demons keep morphing. Now you assert that they exist in a realm that is vibrating at a certain speed and that not only can we not make a machine to detect things vibrating at whatever speed, the human body can be "retuned" or something and detect them.

 

secondly, since the belief in angels cannot be proved to be false, confrontation with the fact of its falsity is impossible. so whatever you think my belief is, you've just shown that it can't be a delusion according to your own definition. at best we have a situation which is open to question and reliant upon experience, the interpretation of which proves nothing either way.

 

I don't have to show that they are false. You have to show that they are real. And you saying they are is not evidence of anything. In the Jesus story, very specific things are asserted, which can be tested. The claim fails even basic common sense tests, so we can conclude that the girl was not, in fact, possessed, and that the story is at best a metaphor, or at worst a fairy tale about Jesus. Why is your demon belief more special than that one? Why is your demon belief better than the one featruing the Great Juju of the Mountain? It isn't, you have just as much evidence for it, but yours is true and demons are real.

 

name me any experience anyone has in a vacuum. i used my eyes to see the thing, my ears to hear it and my brain to determine that whatever it was, couldn't have been human since it had the ability to dematerialise in front of me.

 

I meant in a vacuum of ideas. Before this experience you had an idea of what a demon was, and so labeled what you saw as a demon. And the fact that it dematerialized in front of you is not a huge red-flag that you were imagining it? Suit yourself, but the more you describe the experience, the more it seems delusional, or the description of a psychotic episode.

 

so you've drawn a conclusion that you imagined something. so what? by what parameters does you drawing a conclusion mean you're right? you could easily be deluded in that conclusion.

 

Nope. It isn't easy at all. There is evidence, and there is not. The only evidence I have was that a demon "felt" like it was there. And my feelings are so easily fooled and unreliable, I do not trust them at face value. I examined my own claim about sensing a demon and found I had no evidence whatsoever to support that there was, in fact, a demon. So I must have imagined it. Notice if I was arrogant or narcissistic I would trust my feelings more than evidence, simply because they are MY feelings. There is certainly a chance I deluded myself into thinking that I imagined it, but in the face of the evidence I am as certain as I can be about anything that I did.

 

i just wonder where science gets off telling people that unless something can be measured in a lab, or repeated ad infinitum with the same results, it isn't 'real'. scientific experimentation is very obviously limited in what it is able to assess. science knows a lot about a tiny amount. that's all. there's a lot about a vast amount it hasn't scratched the surface on. but because it can't explain an experience you were once sure you had, you convince yourself you're deluded. i don't get that at all.

 

Obviously. But we do know how the mind works very well. We also know that the senses can trick you. We know that exceedingly well. In the face of all these things that we do know well, the experience I had is easily explainable. My sister was on my bed, and I was at the foot of it, and she was telling demon stories and Satan stories and on and on, and doing a very good job of creeping me out. In this agitated, frightened state, anywhere outside of her physical presence--I think we were holding hands--was evil, or something like that. Is it more rational to believe that I was just freaking myself out, or that there was a demon and my sister banished it? Do you really hold both those explanations as equally valid, or even sane?

 

I have had similar experiences watching movies as a kid. Why do people hold hands or hug tightly when watching a scary movie? Stories can be just as scary as a movie.

 

what do you mean get us? demons don't necessarily want to get us. they like using us, but that's different to getting us. we're actually much more valuable alive. i can explain this if you like but it's a long story.

 

I'm sure it is. And it would mean exactly zero, as it would be just you describing what you believe with no evidence. There are entire volumes written that are airtight and make perfect sense, as long as you accept the premise--which is unproven and for which there is zero evidence. And most of those disagree with your evaluation. I am not surprised that this is never addressed, but I will ask again, for the umpteenth time, why are you right and they wrong? You don't have any evidence, they don't have any evidence. Yet you readily reject their explanations and descriptions. I maintain that it is because yours "feels" right to you and their's does not, and vice versa. You can throw some cultural stuff in there, too.

 

before you start asking about thor again, i repeat, i am not a member of any religion. i dismiss them all for the reason that they must be incorrect if they think they've got a monopoly on god.

 

Yes, you are. You have not given it a name, and seem to be making it up as you go, but you definitely have a religion. Religion is just a codified system of beliefs that address the supernatural. You mentioned what demons want being a long story. That "long story" is your religion.

 

i assert that everyone can do what i do. whether they choose to or not is the difference. and spiritual experiences can be measured on brain scans. scientists just assert, as they must, that the brain causes the experience, it is not caused externally and then interpreted by the brain. a circular argument.

 

That is not a circular argument. Because what is causing the experience cannot be detected, it can be safely concluded that the experience is all in the person's mind. Given the many ways--most of them contradictory--that people believe about such things, it all being in the mind is the most rational conclusion.

 

my parents, sleeping next to each other, once had the same dream. they dreamed them met underneath a tree in our garden and chatted. when they woke up, each was able to tell the other what they talked about in the dream. it happened in a bedroom, not a lab, so of course you'll dismiss it as coincidence or suggestion or delusion or a lie. can you explain this through a natural process?

 

Science doesn't have to always be in a lab to be science, by the way. I can easily explain it. Your parents spend a great deal of time together, and have a great many experiences in common. They know each other very well. They probably had a conversation before they went to sleep. It is not unreasonable to suggest that they could have a similar dream. I would imagine that it happens a lot, but they don't think to talk about it.

 

so everyone who prays is deluded. gandhi, martin luther king, isaac newton, galileo, copernicus, george washington, louis pasteur, kepler, all deluded.

 

Yep. That's why I said that being clever is not an automatic pass for not being deluded. And of those you mentioned, each had a very different idea about god. Just like you. And all their prayers were answered at the same rate--exactly what we would expect through probability.

 

all unable to tell if what they experienced was true or false. all lacking the ability to determine for themselves what was a genuine experience for them. you think it bothered pasteur that he couldn't see god in a petrie dish? you think newton, whose life was based on carrying out experiments and testing himself and the world around him didn't have the ability to assess his own mind?

 

At the time Newton lived, for example, atheism was extremely rare. And it is not the experience, AGAIN, that is delusional, it is the conclusion that is the delusion. Newton didn't test himself. He never tested his god belief once. He wrote volumes about it--volumes that are crude and ill-reasoned, especially considering the science that he did.

 

Notice, too that while you have named a number of great men, just because they did great things it does not follow that they were correct about everything. Such is an Argument From Authority. I would remind you that none of those men would agree with your spiritual position.

 

the fact is that people will always be able to convince themselves, as you have done, that they imagined something. but there's zero evidence that THAT conclusion is the correct one either.

 

There is a great deal of evidence that I imagined it. You just choose to ignore it. And that is certainly your right. To do so is the definition of "delusion": a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. That pretty much sums it up. I confronted my experience with reason and the facts. You do not do that to your beliefs. That is why I can conclude that you are deluded and I am not.

 

That doesn't make you a bad person, stupid, or anything of the sort. It just means that you are holding on to an irrational belief, and are reluctant to part with it.

 

it's still you.

 

Uh-huh.

[Moai]

re:

As long as you touched on the topic, my understanding of Spirit-to-Form Beings:

 

If it (the Being) has great enough power to exist, it should also have the power to exist in any form it chooses.

 

Huh? I obviously have the "power" to exist, and I can't take any form I want.

 

The selection of form is for *specific* purpose -pointing out that something is about to be accomplished that *requires* the use of a recognized form.

 

This whole idea might be considered a fair example of what is meant when we say, in regards to humans and our connected "spirit"," The Human Doing is equally important as the Human Being."

 

-Rio

 

I don't even know what the above means.

[riobikini]

Look, Moai -you're obviously a very bright person- and some of what you say can actually be appreciated by many, here.

 

But to clear up your question of what I meant -without getting tangled in your usual web of contradictions- let me clarify (and read carefully): The topic began by the OP *seemed*, to *me*, to be conveying the possibility that angels can take human form.

 

And going by massive accounts, they do.

 

The "Being" referred to, first, in my post focused on angelic beings.

 

You can now proceed with your usual argument(s).

 

-Rio

[bluetuesday]

I confronted my experience with reason and the facts. You do not do that to your beliefs. That is why I can conclude that you are deluded and I am not.

 

i don't think you did confront your experience with truth and the facts. you used a lack of evidence to dismiss a single incident against which you had nothing personal to measure it. you convinced yourself you must have been deluded because what is currently provable and what other people tell you is factual couldn't corroborate your experience, so you assumed they must be right and you must be wrong. and you had never experienced anything else like it with which to test the experience.

 

i too have worked myself up into a state about monsters in the closet and thought shapes in the dark were something else. i was also a kid once. yet the experience i had on the occasion i've mentioned was very different to that. it was as different to that as eating an ice cream is to seeing a picture of an ice cream. the conclusion i've drawn may be a delusion - as i've said, i cannot prove to you otherwise - but that experience did not happen in a vacuum. i am able to test it by replicating it. like you i would mistrust a one-off experience. but that is not what i've had. i often get an intuitive sense of communication with various spiritual teachers. it is different to other experiences but then so is riding the roller coaster, and you believe in that. it is, however, consistent in itself.

 

i feel rather sorry that you seem to see the world in black and white rationality. everything you think you know is fact, whatever contradicts it is delusion. kind of a sad way of looking at the human experience, IMO.

[Fun2BMe]

The sub-atomic world does not "become seen." It is always there, and always visible, just not by us because it is so fantastically small. We know it is there because we have a theory we can use to predict things about it. And those predictions turn out to be right, all the time. I think quantum theory is the only one in science that has never been wrong. I have read that we understand the quantum world better than we do the one we inhabit, actually. And I have yet to read one person working in the field postulate demons or angels, or vibrations becoming matter.

 

The sub atomic world is made out of wave lengths, so all matter is composed not of matter in solid form but of microscopic energy waves. ALL MATTER IS A VIBRATION. I have studied this on the university level and am stating this as fact not just to disagree with you.

[Love Hurts]

LOL....my son loves "Creed", I told him Creed was evil....he told me no they weren't, just listen to some of the songs....so I did, turns out I really like most of Creeds stuff...lol

 

I love Paolo Nutini’s new shoes….

 

Listen to link.

http://music.msn.com/paolonutini?GT1=9283

 

click Watch concert if you haven’t heard him yet I think it’s the third song…

 

[nice rough soul like voice with a homeland accent]

 

Hey.. I put some new shoes on and suddenly everything is right …I said Hey I put some new shoes on and everybodys smilin and so am I.

[bluetuesday]

The sub atomic world is made out of wave lengths, so all matter is composed not of matter in solid form but of microscopic energy waves. ALL MATTER IS A VIBRATION. I have studied this on the university level and am stating this as fact not just to disagree with you.

 

i am not a physicist but this was also my understanding, that everything is a vibration.

 

i would also question moai's assertion that, sub atomically 'those predictions turn out to be right, all the time'. i thought heisenberg's uncertainty principle proved that the location and speed of a sub-atomic particle couldn't be simultaneously determined - thereby suggesting that the determinism moai seems to support DOESN'T in fact hold up at sub atomic level. i may be wrong, that's just my (limited) understanding.

[Moai]

i am not a physicist but this was also my understanding, that everything is a vibration.

 

i would also question moai's assertion that, sub atomically 'those predictions turn out to be right, all the time'. i thought heisenberg's uncertainty principle proved that the location and speed of a sub-atomic particle couldn't be simultaneously determined - thereby suggesting that the determinism moai seems to support DOESN'T in fact hold up at sub atomic level. i may be wrong, that's just my (limited) understanding.

 

You are wrong. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle says what you assert above, that you can know the speed of a particle, or the location of a particle, but no both simultaneously. This is a fact, and is part of our Quantum Model. The Quantum Model we have is the most successful theory in science. It's predictive ability is at, or near, 100%.

 

It's funny, but in an effort to brush up on the subject I did a quick google search using the term "quantum physics vibration." I got a few results that were the equivalent to a layman's overview (and in scanning has several things wrong) and many, many more about spiritual meaning, astral projection, soul mates, and the like. One of my favorites said something like, "Use Quantum Physics to Achieve Inner Peace."

 

Since this man is an authority on particle physics, and wrote a book called "Unconscious Quantum" on this very subject, I will quote him:

 

"The feeling of oneness experienced by the mystics is almost certainly a delusion. One can find no independent evidence that the claimed insights obtained in mystical state have anything to do with objective reality. No one can point to a previously unknown discovery made in a mystical state that was later confirmed by scientific observation. On the contrary, virtually every claimed mystical, non-trivial revelation about the nature of the universe and humanity's place in it has proved to be grossly wrong."

 

This man knows more about particle physics that you and I ever will, teaches it to others at the college level, and writes books about it that are considered seminal by others in his field with the same background. I think that it is fair to call him an expert in this field, and with all he knows about vibration and molecules, he claims you are deluded.

 

And from his book "Physics and Psychics": "The new anomalies, when they are found will undoubtedly result in the rejection of the current standard model. Possibly they will even lead us to revoke the materialistic, reductionistic, and quantum mechanistic view of the world that now works so well. But if this happens, it will be because empirical evidence demands it, not simply because of pious philosophizing or wishful fantasies based on superstitious beliefs of the prescientific age."

 

I also find it interesting that none of the scientific sites, even the ones who use the term "vibration" do not assert what you do, do not make the claims you do, and usually have a section demonstrating why you are wrong. And you can disagree with this man (and almost every other physicst on the globe to your heart's content, as is your right, but forgive me for taking the word of the men who have the knowledge and work in the field over yours. They have evidence for their position, and even though it would takes years of study to understand it, it is there. Note, that rejecting what they say in favor of your own reality is the definition of delusion.

 

And one last one from the same guy, lest anyone think it is just me being all arrogant about everything, "However debatable its philosophical foundations and moral value, science works better than any other mode of thought we humans have been able to invent so far."

[Moai]

The sub atomic world is made out of wave lengths, so all matter is composed not of matter in solid form but of microscopic energy waves. ALL MATTER IS A VIBRATION. I have studied this on the university level and am stating this as fact not just to disagree with you.

 

Actually, it is particle and waves simultaneously. It is known as "particle/wave duality." I freely admit that I am by no means an expert in quantum mechanics; I kind of understand some of it, but it is difficult. One physicist has said, "If someone tells you they understand quantum physics, they don't understand quantum physics."

[Topper]

waves of matter is this like matter and anti matter? come to think of it ...never mind it really doesn't matter.

 

Just a poor attempt to lighten the mood.

[Moai]

Oh, I forgot to mention that the man's name whom I quoted is Victor Stenger, who's credentials are:

Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, University of HawaiiAdjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado Research Fellow, Center for Inquiry - Transnational, Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

[bluetuesday]

you're not correct about predictive ability, moai. if you want to google something, find out what quantum theorists are speculating about the problem of consciousness affecting matter. here's an article reprinted from the journal of scientific exploration, which touches upon that subject and also on causality and indeterminism in quantum physics.

 

http://http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm

 

i'd also suggest reading about prof. anthony flew, an eminent atheist of the last century who like yourself, was the son of a minister, became an atheist because he felt there was no evidence for god, and maintained an outspoken position on behalf of atheism for decades. but eventually, he says, he realised the only logical conclusion was that the evidence for god DID in fact exist - particularly in reference to intelligent design. read up on him, you might find it interesting.

 

science, like everything else, reveals its secrets slowly. wait aroung long enough and everything you now believe will be proved to be incorrect. that's the way science turns. you think there is only one reality, and you cannot or will not accept an alternative position. it's your right, although it's an unscientific one to the superstring theorists we talked of earlier.

 

we clearly live quite different lives with quite different ways to evaluate our experiences. but it is only you who claims that my reality cannot be real because it is not your reality. i am quite happy to believe that your reality is what you claim it to be, because i know that in this world, what you believe is generally what you'll experience. that's not because belief is the mark of a delusional mind - it's because the world is far weirder and more wonderful than you know.

 

you look to books and other people's proof, and you mistrust your own mind. i take a more philosophical approach and know that since there is no objective reality in this world - even the existence of this world is not provable objectively - no experience is objectively quantifiable, even if you insist it is.

 

if i am deluded, so be it. i'm in great company among people who believed in god and learned from the experience. like them i use my delusions to grapple with big questions such as why we're here and what the meaning of life is. like them i get answers to those questions. that you can't accept the answers is irrelevant. humans in general are remarkably slow to catch onto what to some people is remarkably clear. that's why a few people are innovators and the rest are followers. most people are affected by the mass consciousness, by convention, by doubt, by other people's beliefs. happily i am not affected, but there is no reason to fall out over it.

 

so google away and sleep easy thinking there are no monsters in the dark corners of your room. your mind is closed to anything outside what you currently think can be known. even god can't teach a thing to the man who already knows everything.

[Fun2BMe]

Actually, it is particle and waves simultaneously. It is known as "particle/wave duality." I freely admit that I am by no means an expert in quantum mechanics; I kind of understand some of it, but it is difficult. One physicist has said, "If someone tells you they understand quantum physics, they don't understand quantum physics."

 

That's nice if you want to believe some physicist telling you I don't understand quantum physics. You're free to believe whatever you want. I didn't want to get off topic going into the specifics of physics since as I posted in the other thread, I don't need science to prove religion and find it sad that those who have no belief resort to science only to be disappointed and then use that as affirmation for their atheism. Sometimes when calculations are done in quantum physics, the 'particle' is treated as a wave and its wavelength within the light spectrum is used in the equation. Other times its weight may be used, yet there is no clear cut 'boarder' as a table we visually see has. Think of it as a painting with blurred edges that go on forever and is space.

[Moai]

you're not correct about predictive ability, moai. if you want to google something, find out what quantum theorists are speculating about the problem of consciousness affecting matter. here's an article reprinted from the journal of scientific exploration, which touches upon that subject and also on causality and indeterminism in quantum physics.

 

http://http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm

 

 

Your link did not work.

 

I quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had."

 

i'd also suggest reading about prof. anthony flew, an eminent atheist of the last century who like yourself, was the son of a minister, became an atheist because he felt there was no evidence for god, and maintained an outspoken position on behalf of atheism for decades. but eventually, he says, he realised the only logical conclusion was that the evidence for god DID in fact exist - particularly in reference to intelligent design. read up on him, you might find it interesting.

I've heard of him, and read some debates he was in. From what I have read, he believes in god the way Einstein did. I don't happen to agree with him, as it his whole position seems to be an Argument From Ignorance, but he is very bright. Certainly smarter than me. And I disagree with him. I would say that deism is probably the least theistic belief there is, but it is still delusional.

 

science, like everything else, reveals its secrets slowly. wait aroung long enough and everything you now believe will be proved to be incorrect. that's the way science turns. you think there is only one reality, and you cannot or will not accept an alternative position. it's your right, although it's an unscientific one to the superstring theorists we talked of earlier.

Since string theory as yet has no evidence, it is technically a religious position. I don't completely understand it and I know that physicists are debating it hotly, but it is not rational to assume that when the dust settles we will know that demons exist. Science will certainly refine itself and explanations will improve or change outright. That is what is so cool about it.

 

But there are things in science that won't. All life has a common ancestor is a fact, and is set. We know this because all of the evidence we have leads inexorably to this conclusion. And every time new evidence comes out, it fits with this idea perfectly. That is what is so great about evolutionary theory. It makes predictions, and they come to pass.

 

The Earth revolves around the Sun. This will never change. The list is exhaustive.

 

When evidence comes in that leads to a change in my position, I will change it. There hasn't been any so far. In fact, the men who are at the forefront of gathering the evidence in the first place become more atheistic as time goes on. The even use their knowledge of the subject to bolster the atheist position. Could they, and I, be wrong? Sure. The odds of that being so are so astronomically small I am not losing sleep over it.

 

And I don't think that there is only one reality, but I only inhabit one, so I behave as if there is only one.

 

we clearly live quite different lives with quite different ways to evaluate our experiences. but it is only you who claims that my reality cannot be real because it is not your reality. i am quite happy to believe that your reality is what you claim it to be, because i know that in this world, what you believe is generally what you'll experience. that's not because belief is the mark of a delusional mind - it's because the world is far weirder and more wonderful than you know.

I am not saying that your rreality is less "real" than mine, I am saying that you interpret it in a delusional way. I cannot be any clearer than that about my position.

 

It doesn't bother me in the least if you want to walk around believing that there are 1,000 angels on the head of a pin, or anything else under the sun. It's a free country here, and probably a free country where you live. But I enjoy discussing said issues, and do so in this forum, and others. If you are going to make assertions about your beliefs and the way reality is, why don't I have a right to ask you questions and challenge your interpretations?

 

And consider your above paragraph. You have accused me of being arrogant, and yet you make statements about the way the world is and how it is greater than I know, and on and on. You have no idea what I know, and it is quite presumptive to assume that my experience is somehow "less" than yours, or that your understanding is somehow more enlightened. As with most theists, you have found your Elixir of Life and it makes so much sense, and anyone who disagrees is either arrogant, narcissistic, too rigid, or what have you. In my case, I am all three. A Trinity of shortcomings, if you will.

 

My reality is not what I claim it to be, my reality is what the evidence says it is. There is a huge difference.

 

you look to books and other people's proof, and you mistrust your own mind. i take a more philosophical approach and know that since there is no objective reality in this world - even the existence of this world is not provable objectively - no experience is objectively quantifiable, even if you insist it is.

I do look to the works of others. It is part of being involved in the global conversation. When I read Voltaire, it is as if I am talking to him directly, though he is long dead. It is a very cool thing. Also, there are people who are smarter than I, have more experience than I, and have more time to think about things than I. So I use them as a resource. I would be unwise not to do so.

 

And of course I mistrust my own mind. Why don't you? In science, confirmation bias is eliminated because other people look at your data and try to prove you wrong. Most scientists examine their own ideas with much more scrutiny that those of others. I do that to the best of my ability, and think that everyone should.

 

It is not about experience being quantifiable, it is about interpretation being quantifiable. And yes, I think that it is. And yes, the world's existence is provable empirically, and reality is most certainly quantifiable. If it is your claim that I make reality that way because I believe that, so be it. Why is it, then, that my reality would affect yours at all?

 

if i am deluded, so be it. i'm in great company among people who believed in god and learned from the experience. like them i use my delusions to grapple with big questions such as why we're here and what the meaning of life is. like them i get answers to those questions. that you can't accept the answers is irrelevant.

Just because something answers a question it does not follow that the answer is the correct one. It isn't about me accepting the answers. Meaning is determined by the individual, deluded or not.

 

I would add that the answers that you have found, supposedly, include the idea that there are demons, that they somehow need us to be alive to advance their agenda, but that they are part of the oneness of god, and that you can tune your vibrations to see these things, and on and on.

 

And you keep asserting these things and expect me or anyone else to just say, "Oh, ok. Now it all makes sense. Thanks so much." But I, and I think most people, require a little more than just your asserting something to believe it. Especially considering that what you claim goes against virtually everything we know about the world.

 

Your belief system provides no benefit, save the comfort it gives you. It does not alter the world for the better, nor does it really explain anything. Great that it makes you happy, but that is all it is good for. And while that is super for you, it does nothing for humanity in general.

 

My belief system, on the other hand, helps all people everywhere, and has helped mankind immeasurably. I have listed many of these benefits before, like the small pox vaccine, air conditioning, incredible crop yields of less land, mass transit systems, and on and on and on. Given the success of my belief system, why would I abandon it on your word, and your word alone? That is all the evidence you have.

 

You can hope against hope that somehow quantum mechanics will somehow validate your god-belief, but that will not make it so. But hey, anything is possible.

 

humans in general are remarkably slow to catch onto what to some people is remarkably clear. that's why a few people are innovators and the rest are followers. most people are affected by the mass consciousness, by convention, by doubt, by other people's beliefs. happily i am not affected, but there is no reason to fall out over it.

Or you think that you are not. As a theist, you are amongst the vast majority. You may assert different things about the nature of these things, but you still believe these things. I do not. Who is less affected by mass consciousness? And from what I have read, your assertions about vibrations aren't anything new. I first came across them in "Be Here Now" by Baba Ram Dass. Now terms have been co-opted from physics, but the meaning is the same. Funny how theists are so desperate to have science validate their beliefs, even to the point of misrepresenting the concepts themselves, and what they mean. I know it is because science is so reliable, and has such predictive value that the superstitious are desperate for that kind of validation.

 

so google away and sleep easy thinking there are no monsters in the dark corners of your room. your mind is closed to anything outside what you currently think can be known. even god can't teach a thing to the man who already knows everything.

I do sleep easy, thank you. It must feel really good to hurl statements like this at me, you do it so often. Do the angels you talk to dig that? Do sit up at night with them and giggle about it?

 

And you said yourself tat god stays out of the way of people who don't want to see him, so he is not trying to teach me anything in that event, right? AS with most theists, over and over you contradict yourself, and hurl insults and snide remarks when you are in a weak rhetorical position. I'd blame your material, but that's just me.

 

And I know it seems insulting to have me (and every other thinking person, probably) label your beliefs as delusional. That is not my fault, or the fault of science, or reason. Change your beliefs and the term delusional will no longer apply to you.

 

I never said that I know everything. In fact, I barely know anything. Neither does anyone else, hence people doing science every day. And saying that my mind is closed to what I currently think can be known is nonsensical. I have no idea what everything that can be known is. Neither do you. I do know that there are phenomena happening all the time everywhere, and that every single one has a naturalistic explanation. I know this because it is the fundamental idea behind science, and science works so fabulously well, that its initial assumption must be true. Somehow, though, when it buts up against your particular superstition, it is wrong, closed-minded, arrogant, narcissistic, misguided, and worse.

 

It is important to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

[Moai]

That's nice if you want to believe some physicist telling you I don't understand quantum physics. You're free to believe whatever you want.

 

I wasn't saying that you don't understand quantum physics. For all I know (and very probably) you understand it better than I do. That was a joke made by a physicist while speaking to other physicists at a symposium. I found it funny, and thought that you might, too. Forgive me if that gave offense, that was not the intent.

 

I didn't want to get off topic going into the specifics of physics since as I posted in the other thread, I don't need science to prove religion and find it sad that those who have no belief resort to science only to be disappointed and then use that as affirmation for their atheism.

 

For me anyway, my atheism developed from my growing understanding of science, not the other way around. Mainly evolutionary biology. I do think that science can be used to test the claims of religion, though, and I am not alone in this idea. Sad or not.

 

Sometimes when calculations are done in quantum physics, the 'particle' is treated as a wave and its wavelength within the light spectrum is used in the equation. Other times its weight may be used, yet there is no clear cut 'boarder' as a table we visually see has. Think of it as a painting with blurred edges that go on forever and is space.

 

I try. It seems I get half of it sometimes and the other half at other times, but never the two together. I enjoy the subject, but I don't think that area of science is my forte. To say the least. I seem to grasp biology and geology much more readily.

 

And I think that your understanding of the subject would certainly be germane to the thread, and interesting to boot. I hope that you will provide more information in a future post.

 

Again, I am sorry if my quotation of that joke gave offense.

[Moai]

waves of matter is this like matter and anti matter? come to think of it ...never mind it really doesn't matter.

 

Just a poor attempt to lighten the mood.

 

I used to be wishy-washy, but now I am not so sure....

[burning 4 revenge]

From my understanding monotheism began in Egypt with the worship of the sun by Ahkenaten. The Jews were enslaved in Egypt at the time and from our best evidence YHWH was one of many semitic gods

[Moai]

From my understanding monotheism began in Egypt with the worship of the sun by Ahkenaten. The Jews were enslaved in Egypt at the time and from our best evidence YHWH was one of many semitic gods

 

Well, there is no evidence to suggest that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, save the description in the Bible.

 

But the Jews don't have a god that is born and then defies death, has enemies, and the like. The Egyptians did for sure, and the Christian god does, but I find it interesting that the very religion that spawned Christianity precludes Christianity from being possible. Assuming that the god of the Old Testament is real, of course.

[Moai]

Look, Moai -you're obviously a very bright person- and some of what you say can actually be appreciated by many, here.

 

Golly, thanks.

 

But to clear up your question of what I meant -without getting tangled in your usual web of contradictions- let me clarify (and read carefully): The topic began by the OP *seemed*, to *me*, to be conveying the possibility that angels can take human form.

 

My web of contradictions? Interesting.

 

I would readily agree that if angels exist they would be able to take any form they want. Or no form. Or forms I don't even know about. Supernatural beings can do all sorts of neat things. And they are imaginary.

 

And going by massive accounts, they do.

 

There are just as "massive" account of Vishnu visiting believers, too. But Vishnu doesn't exist, does he?

 

The "Being" referred to, first, in my post focused on angelic beings.

 

You can now proceed with your usual argument(s).

 

-Rio

 

Thank you.

 

Leprechauns can take many forms, too. Sometimes they turn into squirrels and run off into he forest, or turn into a bush. There are many accounts of this happening.

[Moai]

From my understanding monotheism began in Egypt with the worship of the sun by Ahkenaten. The Jews were enslaved in Egypt at the time and from our best evidence YHWH was one of many semitic gods

 

I've been reading up on this. The web is the only source I have right now, but the idea that Egyptians went from polytheism, to monotheism, and then back to polytheism is very interesting.

 

Given that two of the most popular religions around now claim to be monotheistic but actually aren't, maybe polytheism is more "hard-wired" into god belief than I thought.

 

As a kid, polytheism always seemed cooler to me. I really liked the Greek stories, and when I was an early teen and came across all the Wodin stuff and I thought that was the cat's pajamas. Still do. I think if I had to pick a religion, that's the one I'd choose. That or voodoo. There's something creepy about voodoo that enthralls me.

[burning 4 revenge]

Well, there is no evidence to suggest that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, save the description in the Bible.

Tacitus writes about it, as does Philo Judaeus and Josephus, but this is all in the first and second century of the common era so it may be based on biblical mythology.

 

Im not sure if it's based on the truth, but there is no reason to think it isn't based on something real

[Moai]

Tacitus writes about it, as does Philo Judaeus and Josephus, but this is all in the first and second century of the common era so it may be based on biblical mythology.

 

Im not sure if it's based on the truth, but there is no reason to think it isn't based on something real

 

I think by that time it was assumed to be fact, and as you say was based on biblical mythology. The idea has been up until fifty years ago, or so.

 

The Egyptians have no record of it, and considering the events surrounding their release I would think they would have recorded something. But even if they didn't, some vestige of Hebrews being there would be relatively common, yet there is none.

 

Good movie, though. I love Yul Brynner. I like Charlton Heston, too. I had to watch his religious movies a lot as a kid because my mom thinks he's dreamy. She didn't dig Omega Man or Soylent Green too much.

 

Sorry for the tangent. I was lucky enough to see King Tut's tomb contents when on tour. Amazing stuff.

[burning 4 revenge]

I think by that time it was assumed to be fact, and as you say was based on biblical mythology. The idea has been up until fifty years ago, or so.

 

The Egyptians have no record of it, and considering the events surrounding their release I would think they would have recorded something. But even if they didn't, some vestige of Hebrews being there would be relatively common, yet there is none.

Im not so sure though. Egyptologists have pointed to direct parallels between the OT and Egyptian writings. Ill have to do research to find them.

 

Even if they weren't enslaved there was some cross cultural polination going on somewhere. It seems that the Torah was probably composed in the Babylonian exile, so I'm not sure was going on and I don't think anyone is.

[Moai]

Im not so sure though. Egyptologists have pointed to direct parallels between the OT and Egyptian writings. Ill have to do research to find them.

 

Even if they weren't enslaved there was some cross cultural polination going on somewhere. It seems that the Torah was probably composed in the Babylonian exile, so I'm not sure was going on and I don't think anyone is.

 

The cross-cultural pollination to which you refer is certain. It has been awhile, but I remember a film I saw in an archeology class where a group was excavating an ancient Hebrew village. They uncovered a great many cow figurines, and they asserted that the Hebrews probably didn't wipe out the Caananites, but rather mixed with them, and took parts of their belief system. Eventually, in order to repudiate some of those ideas the Golden Calf story was born. Or something like that.

 

Given the Egyptians dominance of the region for so long, antecedents of their culture would of course be everywhere.