Okay - sorry for my previous comment. And reposting "Elohim" and channelling

[Liberation Angel]

First I apologize for my comment in my previous post (which was locked).

Belittling or ridiculing anyone's faith (or lack thereof ) or belief in atheism is unseemly and I did not mean to do that.

That said, I am reposting the rest of my message again for those who want to engage in reasonable discourse about the subject matter (I usually do NOT alert on offensive responses but will if their is a demeaning or ridiculing of my beliefs or those of others here).

My objection was to the harshness of some responses I had received to posts in this forum in the past and I wanted to avoid that

SO...


So i am a little gun shy.

Since I cannot post in the spirituality forum (I can't afford a donor star and no I am not asking for one) - I am posting this here for those who might be interested (not for those who attack all things spiritual).

This is a link to an interesting site which i recommend for those doing spiritual or religious work for the betterment of humanity and the earth.

It is a Youtube video with audio of a channeling which I find very very worth a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOwI4E8KhLg

This is not my site but relates to someone who became interested in Edgar Cayce.

[Silent3]

1. Wonderful. Thank you for sharing.

Not that I mean that very sincerely, but I take it that's all you're prepared to deal with, lest any other reaction be considered the full equivalent of "fundamentalism", under a definition of "fundamentalism" chiefly defined by merely speaking one's mind and daring to verbally criticize, rather than, oh, defined by trying to bring about the teaching of creationism in schools, blocking gay marriage, attempting to turn the armed forces into an armed religious force, etc.

[monmouth]

2. Wish I could rec your post....n/t

[Liberation Angel]

5. Ummm...What?

Not quite sure what you mean here.

I am prepared for any response that is not demeaning or insulting to my and other beliefs (of any sort) unless they are somehow really fascistic.

As for an armed religious force:

for perspective I'd recommend

"The men who stare at goats" (the movie and book)

Anyway, I am speaking about posts that break the rules or come very close - or which are intentionally baiting.

Fundamentalist mindsets can come in all varieties but generally I find those who dump on others' spiritual beliefs can be as narrow minded and fundamentalist as religious people (i.e. some atheists sound like fundamentalists).

But I am open to all comments on the subject matter as long as it is not disparaging in a way which is prohibited and disrespectful here at DU.

I am not quite sure what the gist of your post is. Your point is not at all clear to me.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmallind]

7. No - ridiculous ideas can and will be ridiculed. Ideas are not people.

Chanelling is a ridiculous idea and should be ridiculed.

[humblebum]

10. If I feel that non-belief is a ridiculous idea, should I ridicule it too? nt

[darkstar3]

11. Nothing's stopped you before.

Though you'd have a hard time proving that non-belief is ridiculous in a world that completely lacks evidence of the "stuff" people like to believe in.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Yes, in an appropriate place, such as a religious debate forum.

If you believe atheism is illogical and/or ridiculous, put on your tough skin and make a thread about it.

I wish more theists would come here and attack the idea of a godless universe.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Do you think you haven't been? n/t

[dmallind]

37. Yes feel free. Why on earth would I stop you? NT

[uberllama42]

61. How many times do we have to say this?

Go right the fuck ahead.

[Silent3]

9. The point of my post...

...is a lot of people are way too sensitive to criticism, take criticism of ideas as criticism of themselves, and annoyingly equate the merest surface similarities between not-very-well-analyzed interpretations of fundamentalist Christian behavior and the way many atheists might challenge them as another kind of "fundamentalism".

The point about religion in the military is about a major effort by fundamentalist Christians to recruit from within the military, and to establish the the military forces of the US as a group whose primary allegiance is first to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, and only second to the US Constitution. I don't think that they'll succeed, but that they are even trying, and aren't being challenged more vigorously, is truly frightening.

When people equate that sort of thing, along with efforts to block or ban or revoke gay marriage, for example, with having their poor widdle feewings hurt by an atheist making a snarky comment about the ridiculousness of "channeling", it royally pisses me off.

Is my meaning more clear now?

[skepticscott]

12. So any response that you don't like

that is not "somehow really fascistic" will have you running to the mods?

Would you care to explain what is "fundamentalist" about an atheistic worldview? Or do you just like throwing the word "fundamentalist around as a blanket insult against people that you can't convince of your point of view by facts and logical arguments, and who don't respect unproven and nonsensical claims?

[Liberation Angel]

16. Atheism is considered a fundamentalist doctrine by some and posts that break rules

I will alert on. Personal attacks.


Here;s the wiki entry in part:


Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.<1><2><3><4>

The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;<5> the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.<6>

The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.<6>

Fundamentalism is commonly used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing/left-wing fundamentalists").<7><8> Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.<9>

Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.<10>

[darkstar3]

18. 1. Never trust Wikipedia

2. A theologian of any stripe has no call to refer to someone else as fundamentalist in their faith.
3. If The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, then in order to apply it to atheism you would first have to describe what set of beliefs atheism requires. Good luck with that.

[Sal316]

92. Atheism is a theology....

...a rather short one, but a theology none the less.

as to point #3, unless you can point to scientifically valid, peer reviewed, published studies which disprove the existence of God, atheism is a belief as well.

[darkstar3]

94. You crawled out from under your rock to say that?

What are the tenets of this atheist theology? Keep in mind that, even though you so often like to equate the two, lack of belief and active disbelief are two separate things.
As to point #3, you're off topic. You're making the same claim LA did but couldn't support, without any supporting evidence. If atheism is a belief or set of beliefs then you should have no trouble pointing to what those beliefs are. I'll wait...

[Sal316]

96. Out from under my rock?

Nah, I've been busy studying the depths of wisdom and thought I'd visit the intellectual shallows that is atheism.

Since you like to define words to fit your hackneyed arguments, I'll define theology for you:

"A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions"


lack of belief, active disbelief...they're both theologies.

You claim no evidence. Unless you can point to scientifically valid studies, peer reviewed, published, and repeatable, then it's simply a belief there is no evidence.

Science studies and tests for things that aren't there all the time.
The centuries old argument "there is no evidence for" is conjecture, unless it can be proven.

[skepticscott]

97. And of course you ducked the direct question

"What are the tenets of this atheist theology?"

List them, please. And sorry, "There is no God" doesn't qualify (in case you were planning on leading off your very short list with that). Not when my atheism is simply the position that there is insufficient evidence to convince me that God exist, and no good reason to accept that he does. The evidence that would convince me shouldn't be that hard to come by, but somehow, it never seems to materialize.

And for pity's sake, "scientifically valid studies, peer reviewed, published, and repeatable" showing what. A lack of evidence?? What study, please, would convince you that god doesn't exist, or would make you start to doubt that existence?

You have the burden of proving your affirmative claim with affirmative, objective evidence. Until you do, you convince no one of anything.

[Sal316]

98. Let me speak slowly....

....so I don't confuse you.

Theology, defined as a school of thought regarding God, his existence, attributes, etc., and other religious questions makes:

1) "I don't believe God exists" the central tenet of that theology.
2) "There is no evidence God exists" the central tenet of that theology.
3) "I don't believe in God, period" the central tenet of that theology.

Like I said, they're short, but they are theologies.

It is you, and others, that make the claim that there is no evidence God exists. So, please, since you're so much more scientifically wise than an ex-Navy Nuke, R&D chemist with 20 years experience, 3 US Patents, and numerous internationally published papers, enlighten me on what scientific studies have been undertaken to definitively prove there is no evidence God exists.

Since that's the standard atheists lay down, I'm sure there have been numerous studies done, with valid control samples, perhaps even double blind to prevent any bias in the results.

You can try shifting the burden all you like, but you have the responsibility of proving your claim, too. If you don't, or more likely can't, then it simply proves one thing....

....you BELIEVE there is no evidence God exists. Because, as you folks are wont to say, if you can't prove your claim scientifically, it is invalid.

So, until you proffer evidence, studies, etc., that back up your claim, you convince no one of anything.

[skepticscott]

99. You really don't get this, do you?

I know you're desperate to define atheism as a religion, but atheism does not require anyone to voice or think even the three "tenets" you have assigned to your invented "theology". Whether you admit it or not, you're an atheist with regard to pretty much every deity that's ever been worshipped without having thought any of those things about any of them. Is there a "theology" surrounding your lack of belief in the existence of Thor, or Annubis, or Quetzalcoatl?

And do you not even begin to grasp that it is affirmative claims, claims that maintain the existence of something, that require evidence to be presented? That burden is still on you, so cite me the peer-reviewed, controlled, repeatable studies that show "God" to be the best and most likely explanation for what we see in the world around us. The ones that have been tried, have failed...miserably. Until those claiming that God exists pony up with that, I'm perfectly rational in my position of sitting back and accepting nothing as proven. It is a matter of being convinced of an affirmative claim, and "belief" does not enter into the equation for me....if it does for you, that's your business. Atheism needs to convince no one of the negative in order to be atheism.

[Sal316]

100. No, it is you who don't get it.

First, I never defined atheism as a religion, but a theology. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then you are clearly already way over your head. Belief/non-belief is a school of thought regarding the existence/non-existence of God. Therefore it is a theology.

And do you not even begin to grasp that it is affirmative claims, claims that maintain the existence of something, that require evidence to be presented?
Umm...

Like I said, you claim there is no evidence.

Where are your studies.

Scientists use studies all the time to prove that something isn't there.....toxins in ground water, toxins in air, unstable crystal polymorphs in a synthesis, etc. The results of the test are correctly interpreted as there is no evidence x exists.

Atheism needs to convince no one of the negative in order to be atheism.

Wow. What an incredibly stupid argument. Believing in the negative without proof either way.....how scientifically valid........not.

[Silent3]

101. The toxins that one tests water for...

...are themselves known to exist, and have well-defined properties. Testing whether or not a given sample of water contains a known toxin is not at all comparable to testing whether or not (if we follow your poor analogy with the existence of God) the toxin itself exists anywhere at all, if the toxin is real or not.

In trying to turn lack of belief in God into an assertion that requires evidence, you've completely ignored and evaded just what skepticscott is pointing out to you -- the same twisted arguments apply equally well to lack of belief in Thor, Santa Claus, Russel's Teapot, and invisible pink unicorns.

[Sal316]

107. So, let me get this straight....

...you believe there's no evidence for the existence of something you can't define.

Interesting.

If the argument "there is no evidence for...." were verifiable, you'd be able to define, quantitatively, what you claim there is no evidence for.

Otherwise, it's simply a belief....a statement of faith, so to speak.

For example:

The existence of Element 240 existence hasn't been proven, yet it has definable qualities that one could test for (atomic weight, electron shell structure, nucleus makeup, valance number, etc.)

Oh, and you might want to give up the Invisible Pink Unicorn type arguments. Aside from being simply a way to belittle others masquerading as logical argument, it only goes to prove to the world that those who use them are well versed in reductio ad absurdum as a debate tactic.

First, for the unicorn to be both pink and invisible is an impossibility. If it were one, it could not be the other. We could only know they were pink if they reflected light at a certain wavelength...however, if they reflected light, they would not be invisible, would they? So, that argument, a self-contradictory one at that, is invalid.

On Russell's teapot, we know what the physical characteristics of teapots are, therefore we can, through science, verify that there is not a gigantic teapot floating between planets in our solar system.....yet another case of reductio.

What I find funny is that as atheism is an assertion that cannot be definitively proven, atheists have no qualms belittling people of faith because they cannot definitively prove their case either.

[skepticscott]

106. So you're going to cling to your existing beliefs

in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and pink unicorns until someone publishes double-blind, peer-reviewed, climate-controlled studies proving that there is no evidence that they exist?

You really are too funny..keep it up.

[laconicsax]

105. Hey Sal...

It is you, and others, that make the claim that God exists. So, please, since you're so much more scientifically wise than a professional musician, enlighten me on what has been undertaken to definitively prove that God exists.

Since you're a professional scientist so absolutely sure that your god exists, I'm sure there have been numerous studies done, with valid control samples, perhaps even double blind to prevent any bias in the results.

You can try shifting the burden all you like, but you have the responsibility of proving your claim, too. If you don't, or more likely can't, then it simply proves one thing....

....you only BELIEVE that God exists and that belief is not bound by reality or evidence.

So, until you proffer evidence, studies, etc., that back up your claim, you convince no one of anything.

[darkstar3]

102. The others have pretty much nailed this, but as a response:

Yes, out from under your rock. You disappeared from this particular forum for a while, so I made some assumptions about your chosen hidey-hole. Who cares?

Now, as for this post and the idiocy that follows down-subthread, let me just say this. You have engaged in an argument from authority. You have abused the scientific method and the logical concept of "burden of proof". More importantly you have shown that naval training ignores the finer points of the scientific method, and that theology school ignores the finer points of logic. Of course, anyone who has had some experience with military and divinity schools, like I have, already knew that, but thank you so much for pointing it out in such fine detail.

Oh, and BTW, projection will get you nowhere, so stop telling other people that they are redefining words to fit their own rhetorical needs. After all, who among us again has oft employed the No True Scotsman fallacy?

[skepticscott]

103. Rather ironic too

that there is only one person on this board who feels the need to regularly tout his resume in support of his arguments, little realizing how meaningless it is.

[darkstar3]

104. The funny part is what I left out of my response:

Every time someone on the internet feels the need to tell me about their pedigree, I remember this cartoon...

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberation Angel]

29. I said it feels like it's fundie to ME

and others agree

[skepticscott]

31. So if all that matters is that it FEELS like

atheism is fundamentalist, why did you need to cite a slew of definitions? You ducked my direct challenge to JUSTIFY applying that term to atheists, so I'll repeat it: What principles do atheists adhere to with religious fervor? What tenets will they cling to forever, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? If you can't answer that, then your use of the term fundamentalist is nothing but a blatant smear and insult.

[Goblinmonger]

44. Couple points for you to consider:

1. "others" generally does not equal one person.
2. I think channeling feels like absolute fucking bullshit to ME. Others (actually plural in this instance) agree. Why do you get off the hook but not us? (And I am not saying those positions are morally/logically equal, just that the attitude is hypocritical.)

[Goblinmonger]

20. The earth is considered 6000 years old by some.

The holocaust is considered a myth by some.
Sarah Palin is considered intelligent by some.
Haggis is considered tasty by some.

What's your point?

[Dorian Gray]

27. Mmmm.... Haggis....

wait? What was the conversation?

[Silent3]

22. So, if you're strongly, unequivocally opposed to racism...

...would that make you an anti-racism fundamentalist?

Would you or others invoke the term fundamentalist with disdain for that? For any strongly-held "beliefs" (as if lack of belief is a belief), like believing it's wrong to discriminate by race, wrong to jail people without trial (those damn due-process fundamentalists!), etc.?

[Deep13]

52. "...any response that is not demeaning or insulting to my and other beliefs..."

Well, if you insist on not listening to criticism about religious belief, then there is no point continuing this discussion. Pointing out that facts are facts is not fundamentalism. So far no religion anywhere has produced any verifiable claims about its core beliefs.

[dmallind]

3. If you are gunshy and worried about being unseemly

You may want to get rid of the snide and false "belief in atheism" BS too.

[Liberation Angel]

15. Atheism is a belief

The belief that there is or are no "god" or "gods" (Theos in Greek).

Now the concept of "god" or "gods" is a pretty deep subject. In many traditions it is ineffable, unknowable and actually beyond our understanding - in others it might be riding the bus with you (a la Joan Osborne)

My concern is that people who espouse their belief in atheism (which is an understandable, though I tend to think it is without scientific basis) do not ridicule the spiritual or religious beliefs of others which do not impinge on them. But I understand the rejection of most fundamentalist doctor and really see atheism in some of its manifestations as such a fundamentalist doctrine.

Its a belief. Some folks treat it as a sort of religion of nihilism imho. But not all. In Buddhism the concept of a god is essentially rejected as well. But spirituality is not. All is illusion. Essentially all is nothing (and everything at the same time). A unified field.

To me the unified field is "god" and the consciousness which clearly, to me, pervades the universe is too. Beyond that I think it is pretty effing ineffable.

[darkstar3]

17. Same shit, different day.

a - without
theos - gods

It does NOT mean any kind of belief, active or otherwise, in the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is simply the absence of belief. Technically, with respect to the ancient gods found in hundreds of traditions spanning back thousands of years, everyone on this board, and everyone on this planet, is an atheist.

As for spirituality, reincarnation and the existence of a soul, and other strange things, you'll find that belief in such things varies from atheist to atheist. The only thing they share is a lack of belief in any particular deities.

[Iggo]

21. On the contrary, it's the ABSENCE of belief in a god or gods.

Thanks for playing.

[dmallind]

36. And bald is a hair color? not collecting stamps is a hobby?

While you're teaching me Greek, which is a bit of a waste since it's already been taken care of, you might want to teach me how "A" becomes "no" rather than "without" which is what it means everywhere else in Greek.

What you describe is strong or explicit atheism, which is a tiny subset of atheism, most of which is made up of weak or implicit atheists, who merely lack belief in any gods.

It's no more of a positive belief than acknowledging that Sasquatch has not been shown to exist yet. I do not have a belief in the absance of Bigfoot, but I have no belief in his presence. I feel the exact same way about any and all gods, for the exact same reason - no evidence at all.

[jdp349]

39. epistemology

study it

also look up the definition of word salad while you're at it.

[trotsky]

4. "Sorry for my previous comment"

Sure you are. That must be why you passive-aggressively did your attacking this time around.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. +1

[Iggo]

8. Twice as funny the second time around.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Liberation Angel]

23. Seems like the only religion allowed to be supported on this forum is atheism

judging from this thread,

Nothing but insults and personal attacks.

Jesus.

The foirst time I posted in this forum the same thing happened and I wasn't the least bit snarky.

I guess there aren't many Jesuits or Liberation Theologists around here either.

But to me the way some folks here go about it atheism seems like dogma and rigid, even hostile, form of fundamentalist religion of nihilistic negativity.

I know that all atheists are not like that at all.

But there seems to be some here who delight in dumping on those who believe in anything spiritual.

They would probably call MLK ridiculous for his faith and belief in the Promised Land.

It's a shame and frankly I am surprised the mods allow such bile.

I give up. I was just trying to share but you guys have made it clear: no faith in spiritual matters here. Not for LA.

[darkstar3]

24. You know,

When Jesus said "take up your cross and follow me," he wasn't being literal.

[Silent3]

25. The best prophecies are the self-fulfilling kind. :) n/t

[darkstar3]

26. +10

That was a good one, and I can't believe I missed it.

[Iggo]

28. Oh, bullshit.

You got everything you wanted out of this thread...except the sympathy.

[Liberation Angel]

30. I really just wanted to share without being attacked

foolish me

[skepticscott]

32. And if someone came on the board to "share"

racism or homophobia, what response should they expect? Channeling is baloney..it doesn't happen. Your "god" doesn't exist. Cope.

[trotsky]

34. And yet in your "sharing" post you pre-emptively attacked...

and now you're whining that others met your snark with the same. Aww.

[Iggo]

35. No.

[dmallind]

38. Then stop sharing passive-aggressive lies about atheism and atheists

and you might have a chance of not being "attacked".....or as the rest of us call it, "corrected".

[Goblinmonger]

43. Had you not included the crap/attack on atheism

your thread would have sunk like a rock with no snark being aimed at you. I promise. The only reason your thread did what (I would venture to posit exactly what you wanted) it did, is because of your attack. What amazes most of us is that you are surprised that a group of people would respond to being attacked like this. Did you really expect that we would not respond? Come on, we all know better.

[ironbark]

73. Dam! She didn’t “attack” with “Fish fetish” or “Good one Sherlock” did she???!!!n/t

[Goblinmonger]

81. Get professional help. n/t

[ironbark]

82. I've got it. Bill Hicks 'channels' all my "attacks"...Who fabricates yours?n/t

[Liberation Angel]

85. I was personally attacked in violation of DU rules first

I did act to reempt such attacks in my next OP in this forum.

Poor strategy, i guess.

But I feel like some progress is being made by everyone on this thread (including me).

I will not use a preemptive defense again anytime soon, I'd wager.

[skepticscott]

33. That's what happens in the free intellectual market of ideas

some win, and some lose. The religio-mystical worldview can't sustain itself under the kind of real scrutiny it gets here. The atheistic worldview can. Sorry if the religionistas are tired of losing all the intellectual arguments, but why do you have a problem with that?

[onager]

45. You sound just like...STALIN!!!

:rofl:

Just fulfilling the requirement that every R/T thread have a mention of Uncle Joe.

Carry on.

[ironbark]

46. "some win, and some lose" and some dance prematurely.

“The religio-mystical worldview can't sustain itself under the kind of real scrutiny it gets here. The atheistic worldview can. Sorry if the religionistas are tired of losing all the intellectual arguments…”

Interesting victory dance…but I doubt it is sustainable or verifiable under any “real scrutiny” of the history of the battle field…even in skirmishes with the non religious.

Just a few examples of “losing the intellectual arguments” arround here would be-

1/An insistence that ‘Mohamed talking to an ant” must be taken literally and that any reading as metaphor was evasive, weak and intellectually dishonest.

2/ The claim that an equivalent secular charity to the Salvation Army could be found by consolidating all the little (un named) secular social services into one (imaginary) mega charity that “dwarfed” Aunt Sally.

3/ The search for an enduring secular commune ends with the claim that Native American Society fits the bill.

4/ Statistics that reveal that priests molest children at the same rate as any other group/ profession is taken to represent condoning and excusing such abuse. Further, the protective role of Church Schools and Agencies in Mandatory reporting of child abuse is dismissed and rejected out of hand. The only ‘protection’ against child abuse is for perps not to do it and the true protective agencies are police, fire brigade, ambulance. “No kudos for protecting against child abuse”

5/The historical revisionist assertion that atheism was “picked up” by the Communists along the way as a tool to power. State imposed atheism was “incidental” a “side show” and not a central or core component of Communism in manifesto or practice.

Each and every one of these intellectual victories has been achieved by the proponents fleeing the field (with fingers wedged in ‘ignore’ ears)when their pov was exposed as vacuous...and usually while flinging invective/accusations of “hatred towards atheist” “attacks on atheists” that they refuse to cite/substantiate/justify.
The ‘evidence’ is supposed to be “there for all to see in every post”….
Only one atheist (in four years) has gone looking for the “attacks on atheists and atheism” and came up with and three specific instances of-

1/ Referring to an atheists apparent “Fish fetish” (obsession with ‘Red Herrings’)
2/ Responding “Good one Sherlock” (To the perps shouldn’t commit child abuse ‘protection’ theory)
3/And anticipating the “Heckle Brigade” (in response to the stats on priests/ molestation)

Three outstanding examples of vitriolic assault on atheists establishing/ validating/ substantiating how “Anti atheist bigotry is {my} religion and my church” and reflecting my “desire for theocracy”.

“…tired of losing all the intellectual arguments”

WHAT “intellectual arguments”!?

[skepticscott]

47. Well, a serious person would have started with

the intellectual arguments that purport to show that a god even exists, and the arguments about whether religion has had an overall positive effect on human society down through history.

You, however, had northing better to start with than Muhammad talking to an ant, or the Salivation Army? :silly:

Even the fringe examples you did come up with fall flat...

[ironbark]

48. What a devastating critique ;-)

The two intellectual cabs off the rank- BOTH proposition that any fool should know >cannot< be proven…and can only be argued endlessly from opinion/belief-

“the intellectual arguments that purport to show that a god even exists, and the arguments about whether religion has had an overall positive effect on human society down through history.”



“You, however, had northing better to start with than Muhammad talking to an ant, or the Salivation Army?"

Nice fudge of the issues and devastating deployment of emoticon
You cannot say anything to the obligation to literalism?
You cannot say anything to the invisible secular mega charity?

You can only call for a "does god exist and is religion good or bad"- “intellectual argument”?
Lol….
”No he doesn’t and no it isn’t good” is the beginning, middle and end of your “argument”.
Mirror for theists.

“Even the fringe examples you did come up with fall flat...”

If you say so…..opinion is everything and the dominant tool in “intellectual argument” ;-)


(WTF is a “fringe example”?)

[skepticscott]

55. Nice try at snark, but it's all intellectual tissue paper

The two intellectual cabs off the rank- BOTH proposition that any fool should know >cannot< be proven…and can only be argued endlessly from opinion/belief-

“the intellectual arguments that purport to show that a god even exists, and the arguments about whether religion has had an overall positive effect on human society down through history.”

So you're saying that all of the Christian theologians down through history, Augustine, Aquinas, and the whole roster, who have tried to expound proofs that "god" exists are nothing but fools? Not to mention all of the Xstians who swallow those proofs like Jim Jones' Kool Aid? Hey, if you say so, it must be true. But please don't include atheists in that smear...we're just withholding belief until credible and convincing evidence comes along, which is the only sensible intellectual position.

If you'd like the same treatment for the rest of your so-called arguments, I'd be happy to oblige..just say the word. You just weren't worth the trouble at 5 AM, and are barely worth it now.

[ironbark]

58. Snark or Boojum....Happy hunting.

“So you're saying that all of the Christian theologians down through history, Augustine, Aquinas, and the whole roster, who have tried to expound proofs that "god" exists are nothing but fools?”

No. Not at all. In their time and by their standards and methods they believed (to varying degrees) that the existence of god could be logically demonstrated or proven. We have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of their endeavours (and the subsequent Enlightenment) and knowing that god was not proven, is not proven and possibly/probably will not be proven. But we also know the possibility of god existing cannot be disproved.
We stand on the shoulders of failed endeavours and dead ends in many fields and respects…from the Caloric theory of heat to the mechanistic view of the universe…they are efforts that have ultimately narrowed the investigation by eliminating false trails. Theologians and philosophers have contributed in like manner…establishing legitimate methodologies and exhausting dead ends.
They were not fools nor were their efforts foolish…but it would be extremely foolish to pretend god can be proven or disproven.
It’s an intellectual argument dead end from the outset.

What was your other intellectual gambit?
“whether religion has had an overall positive effect on human society down through history”

And that question automatically devolves into biased subjective readings of history through the filters of pov…Atheists say nay, theists say yay….nonreligious/agnostics say- “How could we ever know?…We have no historical model or example devoid of religion...There is no way of telling if humanity would have been better off without religion”.

So- “a serious person would have started with the intellectual arguments that purport to show that a god even exists, and the arguments about whether religion has had an overall positive effect on human society down through history” falls flat on it’s face with the recognition that >neither< question can be proven one way or the other.
They are both intellectual non starters if 'proof' is your objective.

“..we're just withholding belief until credible and convincing evidence comes along”

That pov raises the potential of examining “evidence” without the necessity of believing/expecting that evidence will lead to any kind of conclusive (scientific/objective) ‘proof’. ‘Evidence’ is available, logic and reason and calculation of statistical probability can be applied to the available evidence.
Wether the evidence is found to be “credible and convincing” will fall again to the subjective bias leanings of the jury. But saying there is no proof is not to say there is no evidence worth considering.

“If you'd like the same treatment for the rest of your so-called arguments, I'd be happy to oblige..just say the word.”

The word.

[skepticscott]

62. Nice try, but more tissue paper

No. Not at all. In their time and by their standards and methods they believed (to varying degrees) that the existence of god could be logically demonstrated or proven. We have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of their endeavours (and the subsequent Enlightenment) and knowing that god was not proven, is not proven and possibly/probably will not be proven. But we also know the possibility of god existing cannot be disproved. We stand on the shoulders of failed endeavours and dead ends in many fields and respects…from the Caloric theory of heat to the mechanistic view of the universe…they are efforts that have ultimately narrowed the investigation by eliminating false trails. Theologians and philosophers have contributed in like manner…establishing legitimate methodologies and exhausting dead ends.

Except that your claim was not about whether the existence of god was not or is not proven, but whether it COULD be proven. And you're completely in the dark when you try to equate the accumulation of evidence over time that makes it rational to accept new theories and reject old ones to a (claimed by you) gradual realization that something CANNOT be proven. You either grasp that those two things are fundamentally different or you don't.

And in any case, many people in the here and now (despite your attempt to blithely consign all of it to the "olden days") do believe, unshakably, that the existence of god can be and has been proven. They have the advantage of hindsight about all of those "failed endeavors", and still do. So I'll ask again....are all of those modern day theologians and religious believers "extremely foolish to pretend god can be proven or disproven."?

If you can't even get over that first hurdle, the rest of your babble hardly seems worth the bandwidth. So try to make some sense on this first.

[ironbark]

72. You advertise exposure of “tissue paper” but have none in store. What gives?

“Except that your claim was not about whether the existence of god was not or is not proven, but whether it COULD be proven. “

Oh for %$#s sake…..AS OF NOW and THUS FAR the existence of god has not been proven and can not be proven on any available data and it would be foolish to claim that there has been or >is< any objective ‘proof’.
That said, it does not exclude or prohibit the future possibility that the existence of god “COULD be proven.”
But at no point, past, present, future, can the possibility of the existence of god be ‘disproven’.


“And you're completely in the dark when you try to equate the accumulation of evidence over time that makes it rational to accept new theories and reject old ones to a (claimed by you) gradual realization that something CANNOT be proven.”

What?
I’m “completely in the dark” when I “try to equate the accumulation of evidence over time” with “a gradual realization” ……..nope….that can’t make sense…so it must be a supposed contradiction between “evidence over time that makes it rational to accept new theories” and “gradual realization that something CANNOT be proven.”…..no….that doesn’t make sense either.
When the “realization that something CANNOT be proven” is >itself< the “rationally accepted new theory” reached over time there is nothing to "equate".

“You either grasp that those two things are fundamentally different or you don't.”

You have not described “two things”…you have described one thing in much the same way twice.

“And in any case, many people in the here and now (despite your attempt to blithely consign all of it to the "olden days") do believe, unshakably, that the existence of god can be and has been proven. “

Despite your attempt to distort my pov I did not at any stage “consign all of it {belief in proof} to the "olden days”…I answered >your< question in relation to those "olden days” theologians.

As to “many people in the here and now… do believe, unshakably, that the existence of god can be and has been proven.” …This is thrice covered ground and deserves a hearty “So what”?
Those who believe god is ‘proven’ to them on the basis of subjective experience (dream, vision, Satori, whatever) have every right to do so…just as they have a right to believe love is ‘proven/ true’.
Those who believe god is objectively ‘proven’ on the basis of scripture/history are ill informed, in error, foolish.
Those who believe god is objectively ‘proven’ as a matter of science are nuts.

(You wanna have a crack at subjecting that to “kind of real scrutiny” to expose the “shifts” and
“bogus arguments”?)


“They have the advantage of hindsight about all of those "failed endeavors", and still do. So I'll ask again....are all of those modern day theologians and religious believers "extremely foolish to pretend god can be proven or disproven."?”

Fourth time across the same ground. If “They” take their personal experience and their hindsight/ history/study/whatever and decide god is ‘proven’ to >them< then that is their subjective reality/their truth. No problem.
If “They” take their personal subjective reality/truth and try to project it into or onto the world as something that has the weight of being objectively proven they are being “extremely foolish”.
(That is not to suggest that they wont be successful in convincing the lonely, needy and or sexually foolish)

Do you know of a "modern day theologian" who believes god is objectively proven?

“If you can't even get over that first hurdle, the rest of your babble hardly seems worth the bandwidth.”

Is this the vaunted “atheistic worldview” “sustaining itself under the kind of real scrutiny”?

For some one who requires the basic “first hurdle” distinctions of scientific, historical and personal ‘proof’ explained to them four times (shooting wide and wild with “bogus arguments” and “babble” snark as you go)……your “bandwidth” expenditure is clearly not your biggest problem.

[skepticscott]

89. Nice job of backpedaling and moving the goalposts

Oh for %$#s sake…..AS OF NOW and THUS FAR the existence of god has not been proven and can not be proven on any available data and it would be foolish to claim that there has been or >is< any objective ‘proof’.
That said, it does not exclude or prohibit the future possibility that the existence of god “COULD be proven.”

So now it's "can not be proven on any available data" and now there's a "future possibility that the existence of god “COULD be proven"

When previously you said:

BOTH proposition that any fool should know >cannot< be proven…and can only be argued endlessly from opinion/belief-

You cunningly avoided any such qualification on your original claim, and also stated that at no time in the future could god be proven (since his existence could only be "argued endlessly from opinion/belief"

And do you even understand that the existence of something can be rationally discounted with 100% certainty without "disproving" it?

I’m “completely in the dark” when I “try to equate the accumulation of evidence over time” with “a gradual realization” ……..nope….that can’t make sense…so it must be a supposed contradiction between “evidence over time that makes it rational to accept new theories” and “gradual realization that something CANNOT be proven.”…..no….that doesn’t make sense either.
When the “realization that something CANNOT be proven” is >itself< the “rationally accepted new theory” reached over time there is nothing to "equate".

“You either grasp that those two things are fundamentally different or you don't.”

You have not described “two things”…you have described one thing in much the same way twice.

As i said, you either grasp this or you don't. Saying that something cannot be considered proven at a particular moment in time and saying that something in principle can never be proven are two fundamentally different things.

“And in any case, many people in the here and now (despite your attempt to blithely consign all of it to the "olden days") do believe, unshakably, that the existence of god can be and has been proven. “

Despite your attempt to distort my pov I did not at any stage “consign all of it {belief in proof} to the "olden days”…I answered >your< question in relation to those "olden days” theologians.

My statement, was NOT just in relation to the "olden days" theologians: I specifically stated "all of the Christian theologians down through history". More goalpost moving.

And no, I didn't require the different forms of proof explained to me. I simply suspected (correctly as it turned out) that you'd say you meant one sense of the word "proven" at one time and a different sense at another time. Since you said originally "BOTH proposition that any fool should know >cannot< be proven", and now you're saying that the existence of god both can and cannot be proven, depending on what you mean by "proven", I guess you figured you couldn't lose. But tell me why I should waste time arguing further when all you do is repeat your usual games.

[skepticscott]

57. And out come the crickets

Just so we have you on record (to be able to quote you four years from now), you're saying that everyone who thinks or claims that the existence of god can be or has been proven is even more ignorant and deluded than a fool? Yes or no?

[ironbark]

59. Proven in a scientific sense? Yea…that would be more nuts than foolish.

Proven in an historical sense?....foolish but not nuts.

Proven to someone’s personal/individual satisfaction on the basis of experience…can’t/won’t argue with their personal reality.

[skepticscott]

63. Nice that you can simply shift what you mean by

the word "proven" to suit whatever bogus argument you're propounding. And if "personal reality" were the only thing that were affected by an individual's belief in god, there'd be no problem, and no reason to argue with them, here or anywhere else. But we both know that's not what happens in the real world, now don't we?

[ironbark]

70. You have a problem with the distinctions between ‘Scientific proof’, ‘historical proof’

and ‘personal/experiential proof’?

Go right ahead Sherlock. Explain how making those distinctions in ‘proof’ “shifts” anything or turns anything into a “bogus argument”.


“And if "personal reality" were the only thing that were affected by an individual's belief in god,….”

What the hell does that little irrelevant diversionary rant have to do with the criteria of ‘proof’?
An experience that an individual may hold to be ‘proof’ is purely subjective and doesn’t qualify on any objective grounds.

You asked your question, you got clear definitional answer, no objective proof of god- foolish to think there is any….now your bitching about unknown “shifts” and unidentified “bogus arguments”?

You trying to tell me there >is< some kind of objective proof of god? If not, WTF is your problem with the definitions of 'proof' provided?

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. There are many theists here too, but none of them have been interested in your post either

I am currently unable to watch videos, but I note that the 'messageaday' site that the YouTube page links to starts off "although we suggest that you consider the purchase of our materials after you read some of our free Message a Day Emails, some of you will get intuitive hits on wanting more now." So that website looks like a commercial attempt to sell books and other things. Frankly, that doesn't conform to most people's definition of 'spiritual'; and it's strange to see "the betterment of humanity and the earth" being hawked for $49.95, shipping included.

And mentioning Edgar Cayce is not a good start - a psychic. Yeah, a lot of people are very sceptical about psychics. Because everything they do can be done by illusionists. And Cayce spouted a lot of nonsense in his time.

Can you explain how the site (or the contents of the video, for those of us unable to view it) could better humanity and the earth?

[PassingFair]

42. Thank goodness, SOMEBODY bought him a STAR!

Now he can live happily ever after in his echo chamber!

(I almost bought him one myself, but I'm too cheap)
(And too lazy)

:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

49. Hey, maybe if enough people who plonk down $49.95 for a scam...

realize that it's a scam, perhaps overall humanity's critical thinking skills improve just a notch. That's a good thing, right?

[Liberation Angel]

50. The Channellings are free

as are the youtube pieces on it.

AND, they will send you the materials for free if you ask nice.

So that is a hell of a lot less capitalistic (or non-spiritual) than most such things.

I wanted to share this with those who might be interested in it and who believe it might be something worthwhile for them.

I do not expect others to get it.

BUT

the last time I posted here I was attacked pretty relentlessly BECAUSE I have spiritual beliefs.

And these were personal attacks in violation of the rules here at DU imho.

I have no problem with atheism at all in general.

What I have a problem with is DUers who break the rules by ridiculing and seemingly harassing people who are spiritual.

[trotsky]

51. Sorry that you think you were attacked.

But the fact of the matter is, both the last time you started a thread AND this time, you are the one who attacked the (non-)beliefs of others first. In your old thread, it was INSISTING that everyone believes in some kind of higher power - that you knew better than atheists themselves what went on inside their heads. In this thread, you launched a pre-emptive attack on anyone who DARED to post anything resembling criticism of your post.

What I have a problem with is DUers who break the rules by ridiculing and seemingly harassing people who are spiritual.

I have a problem with DUers who break the rules by ridiculing and seemingly harassing people who aren't spiritual. Thankfully your previous thread on this same topic was locked for that reason. Someday when you realize that respect is a 2-way street you might just find your DU experience a lot more enjoyable.

[Liberation Angel]

67. You can read the channelings and judge for yourself

If you google wynn free and his sites he will provide all the stuff for free pretty much.

You have to judge for yourwelf whether it has value and whether it can better humanity and the earth,

I believe it can even if you do NOT believe the underlying idea that it is for real:

Because it promotes humanity, protecting the environment. protecting animals, promotes compassion for all beings, and promotes love.

None of those are bad things.

Its kinda like Jesus. You can takae a lot of what he said as really positive messaging without believing he was the "son of God' or even "God himself" or even any of the miracles attributed to him.

I wasn't there so i do not know.

But i do know that the MESSAGES are meant to promote harmony and love and compassion which is a good thing.

Even if they are just from someone's subconscious mind (and I believe they BELIEVE they are acting as a real channel even if they are not).

Only checking the stuff out can help you decide if it has any benefit for humanity.

I think Cayce is interesting even though human and subject to error like all humans. But i do not believe he was a fraud in the sense that he KNEW he was speaking from his own subconscious or was making stuff up. i think he too believed their were higher intelligences communicating through him.

But what do i know? I only know what I believe.

And I believe it is at least POSSIBLE that there is some truth to all the major religions that communication with higher spiritual entities, higher than humankind, is at least possible.

But, again, I could be wrong i guess.

But I have experienced some very profound spiritual/mystical things and so I tend more to believe that such "divinity" does exist.

[Deep13]

53. No, a person can be smart and good and still believe...

...ridiculous things about god.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. There's no such thing as elohim and channeling.

Also- pixies and elves.

[onager]

56. My favorite Edgar Cayce story...

When I lived in Egypt (2005-2009), the archeologist Dr. Zahi Hawass wrote a weekly column in the local paper.

In one column, Hawass wrote that a fellow wanting to study with him showed up in Egypt some years ago. The new prospective archeologist brought along a giant wad of cash and offered it as a donation if he was accepted.

Hawass took the bait, then found the hook - the new student belonged to the Association for Research and Enlightenment, Inc., the woo-woos who worship the Sleeping Profit....er, Prophet, Cayce.

The new benefactor said their first dig should be under the paw of the Sphinx, where they would find the treasures (or something) of Atlanis - according to one of Cayce's prophecies.

Now don't confuse that with the Atlantean Hall of Official Records, which is supposed to be under the Great Pyramid of Cheops. Probably just a lot of parking tickets and restraining orders against Bad JuJu, but I digress.

According to Hawass, he talked the fellow out of this idea. Eventually, the ARE-hole gave up the Cayce crackpottery, accepted the conventional history of the Giza Plateau, and became a real archeologist.

Full disclosure: though he denies it, Hawass apparently still has links to the A.R.E. He's speaking at their convention in October of this year. You can find all sorts of internet rumors about those links. Hawass is a tireless self-promoter, but also a tireless advocate for Egyptian archeology/history. So maybe he's just willing to take help wherever he can get it.

[GoneOffShore]

60. Channeling is nonsense - like ley lines and auras

There are no such things.

And there are no hobbits.

But it is turtles all the way down.

[Liberation Angel]

64. Pretty much all major religious doctrine involves "channeling"

Mohammed channeled, St John Channelled in Revelations, Elijah channeled, Daniel channeled, Isaiah channeled, Moses Channeled, arguably Jesus was channeling "God", Ezekiel channeled, etc.

So it is pretty clear that rejection of all religious belief in Judea-Christian and Islamic traditions (Oh and Zoroaster channeled too) is what you who thiunk channeling is woo-woo are subscribing to.

Religion is woo-woo from your perspectives, right?

There is an expression in the Talmud which goes something like this (it is carved into the walls of Yad Vashem, the Place of Names in Jerusalem which memorializes the Holocaust and celebrates the rescuers and righteous persons who rescued folks from the fascist anti-Semites and antiChristians among the Nazis):

One who does not believe in miracles is not practical.

Now you may scoff at that and lol and rofl whatever...

But from my perspective it is a miracle that we are here at all.

Life is miraculous.

And I happen to have faith that some consciousness much higher than the doltish human race had a hand ( or an energy field or a creative role) in our existence and the existence of all that is.

The idea that our lives and minds are purely an accident of energy to me is woo-woo. It is too well organized and beyond human capacity to organize. How ever it is organized, with the laws of physics etc, is really beyond my comprehension. But mathematically the odds of it being pure accident are, imho, extremely remote: it is simply too perfectly organized and balanced.

Now, are their higher intelligences which can communicate with human beings? Throughout history people have said that they had such contact. Was it their own mind, or subconscious, doing that? Who the hell knows. But WHATEVER it is it is far more sophisticated a system that originated in a tiny ball of energy and evolved from the big bang into all the known material universe: it is highly organized and balanced in a way which ALLOWS for the perception of psychic phenomena and seemingly external communication with the mind (much as receiver gets a radio signal.

The hostility towards the idea of consciousnesses higher than our own, or the belief in them, is what i object to. Hell, we have machines that can damn near read our minds and can subliminally communicate with our minds - even project or stimulate sensations and possibly images.

To assume their is no higher consciousness to me is unsound scientifically. To say that there is no consciousness which can send signals and messages to one's mind (via mechamical, radio, vibrational or other means, strains credulity.

In the vastness of space their may be an almost infinite variety of intelligences. Maybe calculable abstractly but certainly there is the potential for a LOT of intelligences much higher than human beings.

Can they communicate with us if we are open to them.

Who knows. Who knows if they even exist.

But I think from a scientific point of view that the odds are pretty good that we are not alone in this universe and that some of those with whom we chare it may have much higher abilities to communicate with the conscious and unconscious or subconscious mind than most folks would maybe feel comfortable with.

If it is positive communication like the youtube video i linked and others at my youtube site (alongside my antifascist material and cultural/historical material and artistic material) then I see no harm in considering it and even believing that it may be for real. But to dismiss it all as woowoo when the vast majority of the world has had experiences of a religious nature and when even many scientists say that this world seems to have miraculous origins or is frankly unexplainable using scientific knowledge (hell look at quantum mechanics, for example) - is just wearing blinders, imho.

The evidence for much which many folks reject is right there in the human experience and even science is beginning to document such things (human auras are, for example, simply energy fields which surround human beings - we do create energy fields around ourselves - heat, radiational, chemical - and these can be photographed).

Whales and elephants communicate with each other at vibrational levels so low we cannot hear them - but they can. But is our subconscious able to be affected by those vibrations which pass through us in those environments even when we cannot here them with our ears.


I have worked in the "Native American" community for years: many of them call it the "Great Mystery". To say that we KNOW one way or the other is pretty vain when it comes to such things. All we can do is believe what we believe.

And to me I think this whole place is pretty miraculous. And I see more evidence FOR higher positive consciousnesses than against that thesis.

[darkstar3]

65. The possibilities of this universe and the probabilities involved in our existence

may be awe inspiring, but that does not a miracle make. Rarities are not miracles. Neither are rainbows or shooting stars. ;)

[Liberation Angel]

66. Semantics. Same difference. (Miracle defined)

mid-12c., from O.Fr. miracle, from L. miraculum "object of wonder" (in Church L., "marvelous event caused by God"), from mirari "to wonder at," from mirus "wonderful," from *smeiros, from PIE *(s)mei- "to smile, be astonished" (cf. Skt. smerah "smiling," Gk. meidan "to smile," O.C.S. smejo "to laugh;" see smile). Replaced O.E. wundortacen, wundorweorc. The Gk. words rendered as miracle in the English bibles were semeion "sign," teras "wonder," and dynamis "power," in Vulgate translated respectively as signum, prodigium, and virtus.

[darkstar3]

68. I disagree.

Miracle has direct connotations to the supernatural, while the phrase "awe inspiring" does not. That direct tie to the supernatural is evident even in your own chopped up attempt at etymology.

[Liberation Angel]

69. That is straight from the online etymology dictionary

I just copied the whole entry.

SURE there are those who say it is all hokum. But I did think it was fitting that basically the owrd miracle means "AWESOME!"

But I concede that in the most common usage it seems to be related to a mystical presence.

But I tend to believe in that mystical presence.

A great mystery.

A consciousness greater than yours or mine and more powerful.

To say or rather assume that we are the "pinnacle" of intelligent existence in the universe and that there is no way any higher intelligence could possible communicate with us nonverbally, is to me just silly. Of course it is possible. But is it happening? I can only say I believe it MIGHT be. And if it IS happening it is damn cool.

It is like saying Columbus discovered America. (which of course we know is false, the people who lived here discovered it).

I suspect there are higher beings which may be able to communicate with us just as all religious tradiations pretty much have as their basiis.

Humans screw up the messages mostly.

But the channeling messages I linked to are pretty positive even if you only go with the non woowoo (iyho) messages.

[darkstar3]

71. So it's not necessarily God,

but advanced aliens who communicate with us telepathically? Think about this...how fucking egocentric is that?

[Liberation Angel]

75. Who knows?

I guess it depends on your definitions of God, Elohim, and aliens and what have you.

I do not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Do you?

I do not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence which can communicate with us nonverbally.

Do you?

I do not rule out the possibility that extraterrestrial intelligence can communicate with us telepathically or via methods and means which are capable of allowing us to "hear" them in ways similar to scientific means of affecting our thoughts and impressions or at subconscious levels (which may or may not be sounds but which may be outside of our normal range of aural perception).

Do you?

We "hear" things in dreams which are supposedly products of our own minds. But could they be somehow communicated to us subliminally in ways which are not within the range of our hearing perception? I honestly do not know.


I imagine that you do rule out all or most of this as a possibility. But I have yet to see evidence that such things are not possible and I also know that the military and intel services do in fact work on such things using scientists in an attempt to use them for warfare etc. IF they exist I would hope progressives would want to utilize them for peace and harmony.

I am not saying they DO exist I am simply saying that the possibility they exist is strong enough from a scientific point of view that i do not rule them out. AND I am interested in exploring these possibilities further. IF there are highly advanced alien species maybe they have the capacity to communicate directly with our minds through images and ideas or even radio-frequencies, for example, which can stimulate our internal "listening" centers (not our ears but our minds).

You want some definitive proof. I have no problem with that. I wish i had it. But I have had experiences which make me more open to such possibilities as ESP and telepathy and foresight and clairvoyance and clairaudience. I think it is pretty likely.

Ask and maybe you will receive. But you have to be listening.

As some have said: Those who have ears to hear - listen!

If you haven't got the ears for that, oh well. So be it.

[darkstar3]

76. First off, I haven't "ruled out" any possibilities, but I want you to think about something.

Let's dive into your premise.

Let's say that there are incredibly advanced aliens out there. (why not?)
Let's say they're telepathic. (why not?)
Let's say their telepathy can reach over vast, unimaginable distances. (why not?)

Now why the fuck would they want to talk to boring old us? Do you see the egocentrism? It's like assuming that an advanced race would develop interstellar travel just so they could come here and study us. What the fuck would they study about us? What, you think they're all interstellar xenopologists? Give me a break...

Now, on to scientific possibilities...Here's some short and possibly entertaining reading material that I think will get the point across.
http://www.treelobsters.com/2010/07/174-unbelievable.html
http://www.treelobsters.com/2010/07/173-errors-of-comedy.html

Those who are desperate to hear or to see often find what they look for, but in a form they did not expect.

[Liberation Angel]

78. Well, I learned a new word, which is cool, "xenopology"

You ask WHY they would be interested in us.

The answer is in the communications, if you listen to them.

Because they may be kindred species who care about us or even love us and want us not to fuck up this very beautiful and cool planet.

The same way you or I might want to save the whales or save a spotted owl or save an alien species which was destroying itself.

Frankly, I get your point.

We are a mess on this planet.

But simply from a scientific point of view or an evolutionary point of view they might find us interesting, educational or even lovely. Or they may want to consume us (see Steven Hawkings warnings on extraterrestrials - i.e. that they might Eff us up)

But I like where you are going with this and will explore the links.

[Liberation Angel]

79. Okay! That was funny.

Highly recommended funnies.

Thanks!

I will get one more for you back.

brb

[Liberation Angel]

80. Aliens playing tricks? Man says house targeted by aliens after getting hit 6 times by meteors

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread595550/pg1

Tell me that wouldn't make you go hmmm....!

(Of course maybe its all a lie. But it is a damn funny one if it is.

If real (if he is really getting hit over and over) I'd have to agree that SOMETHING was up. But my guess would be an electromagnetic field underneath his house that attracts the meteorites.

Paging Hurley!

[trotsky]

74. WTF does any of this have to do with your pre-emptive attacks?

You bash non-believers, they point it out to you, so you bash them some more.

But I think from a scientific point of view that the odds are pretty good that we are not alone in this universe and that some of those with whom we chare it may have much higher abilities to communicate with the conscious and unconscious or subconscious mind than most folks would maybe feel comfortable with.

And the only thing we are doing is the SCIENTIFIC thing: we are withholding judgment until adequate evidence is presented. No one here is saying those things are IMPOSSIBLE (though they certainly are with our present physiology and technology) - but you've got this strawman that you insist on beating and beating instead of just taking responsibility for what you've said.

[Liberation Angel]

77. I have never bashed nonbelievers and this was not a preemptive attack.

This was a preemptive warning that i have been attacked in the past and defensively want to express my intolerance of those who break the rules by attacking me personally for my beliefs.

And I DO take responsibility for everything I've said.

I have no problem with folks being atheists or wanting proof of such things as divine beings or extraterrestrial intelligence or angels or "God". I generally consider the term "agnostic" as being someone who does not know whether there is a "God" or not etc. Atheist has always represented for me a belief that there is NO God (not that there is no evidence that there is a god or gods, etc.).

BUT it was what appeared to be atheists attacking my beliefs as woowoo that pissed me off and made me do a preemptive warning BECAUSE I felt it was a violation of the DU rules (mostly in the way these assertions were made towards me personally).

Those posts were mostly deleted.

BUT

I HATE to alert EVER. I only did so because I felt there was a pattern of abusing the rules targeting me personally as well as ridiculing my beliefs (which is, to me, a personal attack - use of the term "woowoo" for example.

All that being said, reasonable discourse and discussion is what i'd hoped for.

But frankly I pretty much agree with most of your last post.
i suspect I need evidence, however, to demonstrate that such things are NOT impossible with our "present physiology and technology"

If or rather when I have more time I will find that evidence and we can debate THAT, Fair enough?

I know you like a hot debate on these things. Lets argue the evidence and the facts and get past the opinions.

[trotsky]

83. Well, you're wrong on your definitions of agnostic/atheist.

And you're wrong about it being a pre-emptive "warning". Many people have told you so - but you totally disregard their opinion because obviously you think you were clear enough.

I'm just trying to explain the reaction you got - it's up to you to understand that you really did attack first, ask questions later.

[Liberation Angel]

84. Read my OP again. I was pretty mellow in it. And I apologized

so I feel any snarkiness is unecessary and uncalled for and feels like piling on. But whatever.

I did NOT attack first. I was attacked in another thread before I ever even responded or said anything about atheists or DU rule violators.

As far as definitions, I do not think i am so much wrong as it is a matter of parsing the meanings and common usage.

To me an agnostic is awaiting proof whereas atheists believe there is no "God".

Frankly I do not even like the word "God" much. It is Germanic and kind of an alien concept to me (not literally but figuratively).

i PREFER the Hebrew or Aramaic term Elohim which is essentially plural and denotes more or less that the energies which gave rise to this world (the intelligences who were its "creators" are not an old white guy with a beard and have both male and female attributes (as well as positive and negative energies - creating, sustaining and dissolving). I also appreciate the concept of a trinity of higher mind, lower mind and the connecting spirit or energy.

It is ALL simply energy,

Some of it intelligent and self-reflective (i.e. conscious).

It follows laws and constants which are so precise that they are, according to the scientific odds, unlikely to be random.

BUT I admit that they might be.

But that in and of itself does not rule out a higher intelligence communicating with the human species.

But, for the record, I was attacked first and it was a personal attack in violation of the rules.

[trotsky]

86. Yes, yes, clearly you're the innocent victim.

:sarcasm:

To me an agnostic is awaiting proof whereas atheists believe there is no "God".

Yeah, your definitions are wrong. But it fits with your whole M.O. to ignore the offense that people are taking and just continue using those words the way YOU want to. And then act all innocent when people meet your disrespect with the same.

[Liberation Angel]

87. Its semantics not an insult

Agnostic means "does not know"

asexual means not sexual

apolitical means not political

atheist means No "god"

The prefix "a" means NO or NOT. It doesn't mean "not sure". And I am sure many atheists here are pretty sure there is no "god" in their belief system.

BUT

If like any "ism" there are shades and degrees.

Some atheists believe "god" is unproven. Others believe there is no "god".

Why is that insulting or disrespectful?

Besides I was not defending against the belief in atheism, I was defending myself against personal attacks on me and on my beliefs.

[trotsky]

88. People take it as an insult. Because your semantics are wrong.

And guess what? As long as you keep wielding your "semantics" as a club, hitting people over the head, they're going to continue to be upset with you. Go figure.

Does this register at all?

Here, try reading this: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

And this: http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic

[Liberation Angel]

90. Basically this supports my position that it is all a matter of definition

or semantics

The definitions you site are one opinion.

But I now get much more clearly your adherence to the argument that atheism is not a belief (although other argues it is a belief and the article you links allows that as one definition as I read it)

But it really bypasses the problem I identified regarding attacks on MY beliefs and on me personally. THAT started BEFORE I posted complaining about it.

My original post in this forum some time back (a few weeks ago) was savaged and I made no mention of anything remotely offensive about atheists or atheism or even DUers.

I was posting about religious or spiritual related matters.

I had NO expectation that such a post would be a magnet for people who wanted to ridicule those who hold spiritual or religious beliefs. I THOUGHT this forum was about religion and not the opposition to religion (although at DU I expect any topic will generate debate and oppositional postings, especially from trolls etc.)

But I expected this forum to be more feiendly towards subjects I wanted to discuss.

Instead I got vitriol by those who claim to be atheists or who were promoting atheism.

So much for cool discussion of spiritual stuff. It just devolved into semantical tug of war. A debate about whether religious belief or faith or spirutal beliefs are "woowoo". And that just sucks *ss.

Uselessly so imho.

Anyway, i guess I can count on any of my posts on these subjects being ridiculed from here on out on this forum.

So be it.

But it is a shame.

Because imho folks NEED to ba able to discuss spiritual stuff without being attacked as woowoos or constantly being on the defensive.

Maybe I'll try again sometime.

Maybe not.

It really has been unpleasant and that is NOT why I post at DU.

I wanted to share and got dumped on. Every time I posted here.

Congrats.

[skepticscott]

93. You want to discuss woo-woo

without being exposed to criticism and ridicule? You want to hang out with other woo-wooers and compliment each other on how wonderful your unsupported and nonsensical beliefs are? Knock yourself out. There are plenty of places on this site where you can go to do that, and where contrary views are banned for your comfort. But this room isn't one of them, so please don't come in here slamming non-believers and playing the poor, persecuted victim when you get back more than you bargained for.

[trotsky]

95. You got "dumped on" because you insulted others.

You get what you give.

Congrats, indeed.

P.S. Welcome to the Internet.

[onager]

91. You blew this part, too...

...I also know that the military and intel services do in fact work on such things using scientists in an attempt to use them for warfare etc.

Good grief. That tired old Operation Stargate nonsense again. You do realize that program was shut down in 1995, don't you? Guess not.

Since upthread you cited "Men Who Stare At Goats," I'm assuming that's your unimpeachable source for this claim. I don't know if you mean the movie or the book.

My favorite part of the book was the man who absolutely SWORE he saw Joe McMoneagle open a locked door WITH HIS MIND!!! But a few pages later, McMoneagle himself admitted that he just picked the lock. Nothing psychic involved.

Some facts - Operation Stargate was initially funded by Sen. Claiborne Pell, known around Capital Hill as "the Senator from Mars" because of his wooery. The program concentrated mainly on remote viewing (RV).

Contrary to claims that the govt. spent "millions of dollars a year" and "hired thousands of psychics," the total budget from 1972-1995 was $20 million, or less than $1 million a year - coffee money at the Pentagon. The total number of participants, for the life of the program, was about 40.

Googling "Operation Stargate" brings up a lot of heavy-breathing, hand-waving woo sites, but the Federation of American Scientists article is good:

The FY 1995 Defense Appropriations bill directed that the program be transferred to CIA, with CIA instructed to conduct a retrospective review of the program...

CIA concluded that there was no case in which ESP had provided data used to guide intelligence operations.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm

And there's a good reason the CIA didn't find anything. Laid out nicely in this exchange between a Real Scientist and a credulous "journalist" who managed to get just about everything wrong in her history of Stargate - "Operation Stargate, The CIA and Psychic Spies" by Judyth Piazza:

Part of the response: Nobel Prizes would be immediately handed over to the researchers who verifiably demonstrate, under rigorously controlled conditions, that these powers exist.

If true, our police agencies would be able to solve virtually all crimes, but alas they are not. Imagine the time saved by those who are forensic scientists if they could just RV (remote-view) their way to the crime scene and track down who the criminal is.

There would be no need to labor long and hard in university to obtain a degree in forensic science. The UN would be using them to uncover the mass graves of those who were victims of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, but alas, the UN is not.

The scientific community (NASA for example) could be using them to "travel" the surface of Mars, rather than spending the money and resources on two robotic rovers, but alas, NASA is not - ditto for Jupiter and Saturn.

There would be no need to have UN inspectors in North Korea or Iran to verify if the N. Koreans/Iranians are making nuclear bombs, the US/UN could instead have RV'rs check this, but alas, they are not.

And I could continue like this and fill several more of your computer screens with basic, common-sense, everyday examples of where/how these people could be used but, alas, are not. I'm sure you can think of examples of your own. Do none of these cause you to think, "If their powers were real, why aren't they being used?"

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070626101644tsop.nb/topstory.html