The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

[WilliamC]

P.S. Dahmer, Manson, and Hitler certainly should be free to profess their beliefs until the neighborhood pets go missing.

Would you allow them to do this at the local elementary school? If not, why not?

How about the local university?

Come on now Macon, GA.

Obviously the idea is that anyone with psychopathic tendencies will be far more likely to start with animals before they harm humans. By stopping them as soon as they show a propensity for harming animals we will greatly lessen the possibility of harm to any human.

I honestly don't believe your implication that this quote means you believe the person making the statement values pets more than elementary or university students.

Many authors write horrifically gruesome fiction, it is legal for them to do so. I'm even aware that there are graphically detailed motion pictures dealing with similarly gruesome topics. Personally I have no interest in such literature or film, my "tastes" in horror are more along the science-fiction type. But that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal on the Federal level.

In a more Federalist system of government State and local communities would have more authority to regulate morality than they do now, so long as they maintained the Constitutionally required republican form of governance over their population.

Article IV Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Aside from that the States should have much greater leeway than they currently do in regulating morality, including free-speech issues like whether or not movies depicting human torture are allowed to be shown as entertainment.

One of the main problems today is that our Country has shifted from a dual Federalism form of government (where the States are co-equal with the National government) to a cooperative Federalism form of government (where the National government is supreme and controls what powers the States have).

So if California wants to have different laws regulating the types of movies that can be played in public theaters than say, Mississippi, I don't see where that is unconstitutional.

For a more detailed explanation of Federalism please see here.

 

[Theocrat]

No Offense, WilliamC

Would that I could take you at your word, but I don't.

Do you still seek to destroy my ideas and see my point of view of the world become extinct?

Yes, absolutely.

I do not have religious beliefs, as by definition religion is a belief in the supernatural or superhuman powers.

But don't take my word for it.

see www.dictionary.com

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

or http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

re·li·gion
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural

or http://dictionary.cambridge.org

religion

1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:

if you don't believe me.

Well, by those definitions you've used, I would still say that you are "religious" in the sense that you believe that man is God. You begin with his reasoning, his ability to make moral choices, his own capacity to rightly understand science without relying on something else bigger than himself outside of the natural world, etc. You also have faith in things which cannot be seen by empirical observation, such as logic, truth, justice, and love (universal, abstract, invariant entities, as I've called them). You worship the human psyche and condition, his technology, his so-called autonomy, etc. These all reveal, at least to me, that you are indeed "religious." So am I, and that's because we're all made in the image of God and created to worship something or someone. It's inherent in our very being as humans.

As for "might makes right" well unfortunately all political power, including our ability to have rights, comes from victories won on the battlefield. Without the colonies having won the Revolutionary War we Americans would never have had a Constitution nor had the rights recognized by it granted to us.

That doesn't mean the victor is necessarily righteous, either. One can immediately think of Hitler's use of "might makes right" upon the Jews.

While the idea of rights is something that is inherent to all individuals, the actually possession of rights very much depends upon the possession of power.

Refresh my memory because I don't understand how rights, which are immaterial in nature, are inherent in something that is material in nature, such as humans, in your worldview.

As for "random chance" methinks you don't distinguish between true random events and stochastic processes. Without that understanding it is not surprising that you have so little understanding of science, especially the science of complex, dynamic systems like biological organisms.

How can random events or stochastic processes form complex, dynamic systems like biological organisms, WilliamC?! This is just preposterous that you would even suggest that, I must admit. Where did these systems originate from?

Natural selection is as much a tautology as is 1 + 1 = 2.

"Natural selection" is only a tautology if your definition of it comes down to "survival of the fittest." My understanding of natural selection is much more involved than that.

You are confusing me with some preconceived idea you have as I have not resorted to screaming in this forum, I have remained quite dispassionate in my discourse with you, and I do not believe there is any rock from which mankind evolved.

If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected. Where did we evolve from, then? In other words, what was the first cause of the universe, given your own scientific assumptions of biogenesis?

 

[sophocles07]

I have given you logical answers to rational arguments, sophocles07. You just don't understand them, choose to ridicule them, or belligerently disagree with them, and that's fine. I'm now convinced that no matter what I tell you, you simply will not be persuaded of the existence of God, the truth of His word, nor anything else pertaining to God's nature and character until or unless God converts you by His Spirit through His gospel.

When I explain anything to you from a Christian theistic perspective, I have to hear remarks such as "you're a fucking idiot," or "you're a sophist," or "you're a psycho who needs to be caged" or any combinations of these in expletives. Rather than admitting your disagreement with my answers, you'd rather be immature and ignorant by engaging me in illogical ad hominem attacks. That's not rational, and it's not in the good spirit of intelligent debate.

You do realize that this is usually the response when you have been either 1. telling me “I hate God,” 2. I’m going to hell, 3. I hate Jesus, 4. I “just can’t understand,” 5. Maybe “someday I’ll understand,” 6. telling me you want a theocratic nation that destroys the constitution, etc., right?

I don't know what your problem is, sophocles07,

YOU

but from what I've read of your posts in the particular thread, I have concluded that you really do hate God,

bleh...........

Fine, man, whatever.

and, yes, you do acknowledge His existence. In your heart of hearts, you know there's a God because you reason, use morality, assume the uniformity of nature when making scientific measurements, etc.

O, Theocrat, so smart, so smart; “heart of hearts,” what a wonderful phrase; you just “know” these things, don’t you, how wonderful; so smart, so blessed.

Just like me, you use circular reasoning. For instance, you argue for the use of logic in reasoning, all the while assuming the existence of logic. You assume there's moral standards by which mankind should live by; otherwise, you would conclude that Hitler was right for annihilating the Jews, for example. But you don't because you realize what he did was horrible, and that's a correct assessment. All I'm saying is that your actions speak louder than your words. Although you say there is no God, you can't reason nor act that way. Presuppositionally speaking, your worldview contradicts how you interact within the world you live in. That's all I've been trying to prove to you in this forum thread.

I don’t see any examples of “circular reasoning” here.

I have assumed the existence of logic because it obviouslyexists. What is 1+1? Is the answer the same as 5-4? The abstract connection hear requires the appellation “logic.”

I have assumed the existence of morality because it obviously exists. This is no different than saying I realize language exists, because it exists.

Now, is the leap from that basic fact to the idea of a divinity necessary or even desirable? I’d say no; and, just as language is not a “God-placed” trait of the human race, neither is morality—it is a developed trait.

When you grow up and learn how to argue and disagree in a civil fashion, then maybe I'll take your arguments more seriously under consideration. But until then, I leave you yet again with these words from Dr. Cornelius Van Til:

I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.

It’s abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere. This is not the result of my, beachmaster’s, WilliamC, or Kade’s inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances. IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (“He may exist”). In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters “immature” for using “curse words” (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves). SO: I’m probably going to stop posting to your replies at this point—the actual point of my above summary of your views—as we are getting nowhere.

Hopefully anyone reading over this thread will realize what a extraordinarily marginalized, delusional few people (Theocrat, Dirt Roads Scholar, Macon GA) you are that believe in a “theocracy”. Also, I would hope they notice the unsurprisingly deficient logic and, high-toned, self-righteous tone that you employ to skirt issues and trick others in argument.

ETC.

 

[WilliamC]

Good Morning Hypnagogue.

Sorry, that is simply not true. Why is it that we want to excuse miscreant behavior by calling it a disease or illness? We have rejected God's Law, which exposes our sin. We have replaced it with our own arbitrary standards. Any deviations from those we can simply excuse as illness. The implications are... we aren't accountable for our behavior.

You aren't a murderer; you are mentally ill.
You aren't a drunkard; you are an alcoholic.
You aren't an adulterer; you are a sex addict.
You aren't a drug addict; you are just sick.
You aren't a thief; you are a kleptomaniac.

Even our children are affected by this reasoning:

Your behavior isn't due to a lack of self discipline; you have ADD or ADHD. Let's medicate you.

Where is the hope in that? Take some pills and relieve the symptoms, but don't deal with the real problem.

Please review the following:

Murders committed by mentally ill people are not on the increase, despite popular belief, psychiatrists have claimed. People who have drunk too much or taken drugs are more likely to kill someone, they said. The finding comes in a study by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), which found a steady decline in the proportion of murders committed by people with mental disorders between 1957 and 1995.
It concludes that people are more likely to win the National Lottery jackpot than to die at the hand of a stranger with a mental illness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/248841.stm

Mentally ill patients are six times more likely to be murdered than the general population, researchers have found. The mentally ill also have higher death rates from suicide and accidental causes.

http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/December01/statistics.htm

Perhaps the drugs and the alcohol allow the people to relax their inhibitions just enough to follow out their "natural" impulses.

Now I actually tend to agree with you here Macon, GA. Personally I don't think that the entire mental illness defense in criminal matters is Constitutional, since it creates a special class of individuals that is treated differently under the law.

If a rabid dog attacks and kills a child it should be summarily executed, no trial needed.

If a "mentally ill" human attacks and kills a child they should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty of the crime, subject to the harshest penalty available (and I am not an opponent of the death penalty for some crimes either).

I could care less if the human was "mentally ill" at the time of the attack, or if they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or any other extenuating circumstance except possibly if they were being coerced by another human against their will, i.e. if it was shown that the person committing the crime had had their child kidnapped and threatened with harm or death unless they followed out the orders of the kidnapper.

That would not remove the fact that the person committed the crime and should be punished, but it may mitigate the sentencing they would receive.

But hearing voices, being insane, being drugged (assuming again they took the drugs of their own free-will and were not tricked or coerced into doing so) or whatever just doesn't matter to me. If they commit the crime of their own decision then they should face the consenquences.

 

[WilliamC]

So far, this thread reminds me of the old saying: "When you argue with a fool, chances are, he is doing the same."

Combine this with Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1 and you will understand there is no point in arguing either way.

heh heh. :o

 

[Macon GA]

Sophocles Who?

She should either un-ignore me or stop responding to me via other posts’ quoting.

This will be the last time I quote you, Sophocles07. I refuse to "un-ignore" you because, to be quite honest, you disgust me....NOT because of your "theological" stance, but because of your attitude. You are one of the rudest individuals that I have encountered on this forum.

I have found dialoguing with WilliamC and Beachmaster to be quite enjoyable. While we don't agree, I feel like I would genuinely like these people were I to ever meet them in person.

Throughout this discussion I have found it interesting that you support Ron Paul (perhaps you think the same of me).... Ron Paul seems (I don't know him personally) to be a kind individual, capable of expressing his disagreements with others passionately, but never coarsely. He is a gentleman extraordinaire.

You, Sophocles, are not. Nobody will ever hear what you are trying to say, because of the manner in which you say it.

So Adieu, Sophocles. I will purpose never to respond to any of your quoted posts again......................

I pray that one day you will meet the Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi.

 

[WilliamC]

Yes, absolutely.

And how do you plan on doing that without causing me harm?

I do not wish to destroy your religious beliefs, even though I do not share them

It is sad to see such intolerance from someone who professes to support Ron Paul.

Well, by those definitions you've used, I would still say that you are "religious" in the sense that you believe that man is God.

Then you would be incorrect as I do not ascribe any sort of supernatural abilities to man.

We are bound by the physics of the Universe. If you wish to believe that God created the Universe with all its inherent physical laws then I can't refute that. I simply don't share that belief.

And for that you would see me be destroyed

You begin with his reasoning, his ability to make moral choices, his own capacity to rightly understand science without relying on something else bigger than himself outside of the natural world, etc. You also have faith in things which cannot be seen by empirical observation, such as logic, truth, justice, and love (universal, abstract, invariant entities, as I've called them).

I do not have faith in them as you have in god. Should I discover new information I retain the ability to change my mind.

But ideas such as logic, truth, justice, and love are pretty much universal constants among humans, so the evidence that would have to be presented to make me disbelieve in them would be, well, I wouldn't know it until it happened I guess.

But if supernatural creatures suddenly started materializing out of nothing here on Earth and zapping people with holy powers that would sure go a long way.

You worship the human psyche and condition, his technology, his so-called autonomy, etc.

No, not at all. You still must have me confused with someone else, as you did in your previous post.

Although I do confess to having adoring feelings of reverence for my wife and for other women I have had the privlidge to love, I do not see them as gods or goddesses, so I can't even really say I worship them.

Keep trying though Theocrat, to claim you know what I feel or think. If you guess long enough you may actually get it right.

These all reveal, at least to me, that you are indeed "religious."

No, that's just your projection of your emotions onto me. Of course you are free to call me a liar, and that wouldn't surprise me since you seek to destroy my beliefs.

So am I, and that's because we're all made in the image of God and created to worship something or someone.

See what I mean? That's projection, claiming that I must feel as you do because you already feel that way.

What a poor understanding of the human condition you display for all of us to see. Not everyone thinks, feels, or believes as you do about religion, Theocrat. No matter how much you insist we do.

It's inherent in our very being as humans.

Show me a definition of human from a neutral dictionary (not a biblical one) that says humans are an image of god.

That's your basic flaw in your reasoning, you start with the premise that you already know the answers. As someone else in this thread has suggested, I am just a fool for arguing with you because I know this.

That doesn't mean the victor is necessarily righteous, either. One can immediately think of Hitler's use of "might makes right" upon the Jews.

Correct, might does not make one righteous. However, righteous people with no power will have no rights and, in a bad situation, no life. You make the point in your statement.

Refresh my memory because I don't understand how rights, which are immaterial in nature, are inherent in something that is material in nature, such as humans, in your worldview.

Rights only come from the mind of an individual capable of recognizing the humanity in another. Our history is one long struggle to get all humans to recognize that all individuals should have equal rights, under the law.

The reason I wish to take away rights from those who would commit violence and fraud to get their way is purely selfish, I don't want to have them harm me and mine. Hopefully I will be able to cooperate with enough like minded people to overcome folks such as yourself who see nothing wrong with destroying those they disagree with, even when those aren't out to harm you.

How can random events or stochastic processes form complex, dynamic systems like biological organisms, WilliamC?! This is just preposterous that you would even suggest that, I must admit. Where did these systems originate from?

I never pretended that science can answer the epistemological questions, because it can't. That is the realm of philosophy and, yes, religion.

Science just deals with the details of how things happen once the Universe has been created, and it has done a pretty fair job of it going all the way back to a small fraction of a second right after the miracle of the big bang.

It's not up to me to teach you science, it's your choice to remain ignorant of it.

I just happen not to have much use for religion, I learned enough about it early on to realize it didn't make any sense for me personally. That's all.

"Natural selection" is only a tautology if your definition of it comes down to "survival of the fittest." My understanding of natural selection is much more involved than that.

No, it isn't. Natural selection is quite simply the tautology that those individuals which are more "fit" in a given generation will have more offspring and thereby contribute more of their genetic information to succeeding generations than less "fit" individuals.

But natural selection is only a very tiny part of evolution, that is true.

If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected. Where did we evolve from, then? In other words, what was the first cause of the universe, given your own scientific assumptions of biogenesis?

The "first cause of the universe" is not a scientific question, as I said above. If people wish to believe god started everything that is not a falsefiable premise.

But you've got to go through a few billion years of cosmology, astrophysics, chemistry, and geology before you even get to the biological question of the origin of life.

That's a bit too much knowledge for me to wish to present to you in the context of a post on RonPaulForums, but you obviously have internet access, and there are no secrets involved, so feel free to do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

After all, that is part of the scientific method.

 

[WilliamC]

It’s abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere. This is not the result of my, beachmaster’s, WilliamC, or Kade’s inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances. IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (“He may exist”). In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters “immature” for using “curse words” (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves). SO: I’m probably going to stop posting to your replies at this point—the actual point of my above summary of your views—as we are getting nowhere.

Yes, I think I too have wasted enough time "debating" Theocrat. Hopefully the readers of this thread, now and in the future, will be able to make their own decisions as to who is a champion of peace and individual rights and who isn't.

Of course what you should always keep in mind sophocles is that what you say really isn't directed to the person you are responding too so much as to the broader audience that is following the debate without participating. That is why a judicious use of language is always called for in a public forum such as this.

 

[Kade]

Kade, speaking as an anti-religious atheist myself, you need to give it a rest. You will never succeed in using reason against those who do not wish to think. It's not like the people who are sitting on the fence are going to be the ones who engage in these topics. It will continue to be the two sides whose minds are already, for the most part, made up.

I fully understand that yearning to throw reason into the machinery of mythology, and to demand that people see and hear and understand, but that's simply never going to happen.

Our best strategy is to live our lives nobly and with our philosophies borne openly, while working to create a society where all philosophies may compete fairly. Then we need only sit back and let truth take it's course.

I will do so, but promise me you and the others on this board won't be sitting back if this country ever goes too far to the dark side... We are vastly outnumbered, and I am genuinely concerned that our moderate minded friends are buying into the Flavo-Aid

It’s abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere. This is not the result of my, beachmaster’s, WilliamC, or Kade’s inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances. IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (“He may exist”). In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters “immature” for using “curse words” (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves). SO: I’m probably going to stop posting to your replies at this point—the actual point of my above summary of your views—as we are getting nowhere.

Hopefully anyone reading over this thread will realize what a extraordinarily marginalized, delusional few people (Theocrat, Dirt Roads Scholar, Macon GA) you are that believe in a “theocracy”. Also, I would hope they notice the unsurprisingly deficient logic and, high-toned, self-righteous tone that you employ to skirt issues and trick others in argument.

ETC.

Agreed. I have never said that I am 100% certain of my position on anything... I do not hold to dogma, nor do I pretend to know everything... what scares me most are the people who refuse to allow themselves to be wrong...

I am, as I'm sure you and the others like us are, always willing to be wrong, if someone can just prove it, just provide a suitable amount of evidence... for any position.

This board has convinced me of different positions on policies I have once supported, or never supported before... This debate has not moved, and as stubborn as I may be, it should be openly admitted here in the name of truth, that nothing but irrational nonsense has been offered to us by the likes of Theocrat.

The original article was about Theists versus Atheists, I think a point has been proven here... not all Christians and Atheists hate each other, but there are definately factions of the religious branch that are certifiably mentally deranged and a potential danger to the well being of other humans.

 

[beachmaster]

But if supernatural creatures suddenly started materializing out of nothing here on Earth and zapping people with holy powers that would sure go a long way.

I wouldn't believe in God or Jesus if they appeared together in my bedroom. It could be a trick of the mind, some kind of psy-op deception with drugs, holograms or whatever. A whole city could be possibly sprayed with hallucinogens and everyone is running around seeing demons and angels... If that happened, yes it might be terrifying, but if I had any semblance of reason left in me, I would suspect it could be anything... yes it could even be God, Jesus, Satan, demons, or whatever. In fact, if demons are real, and they can impersonate others, a demon (or the master demon himself, Satan) could appear as an angel of light, or Jesus (another Jesus as the bible indicates may be possible).

I could ask for some form of ID, but even the ID would be suspect. How would you know it was really something supernatural, or just a trick of the mind? Or if we live in a simulated world, the programmer could just be screwing with you.

I've learned to believe nothing, not even if I see it with my own eyes pertaining to extraordinary events... and 911 immediately comes to mind here.


Now I suspect if Theo saw a God or a Jesus, he would instantly bow down to the apparition without even so much as asking for solid ID or proof of who it said it was.

"Hey, you must be God. You just said so!... And who can dispute the Word of the living God? God wouldn't lie after all."

 

[WilliamC]

I wouldn't believe in God or Jesus if they appeared together in my bedroom. It could be a trick of the mind, some kind of psy-op deception with drugs, holograms or whatever. A whole city could be possibly sprayed with hallucinogens and everyone is running around seeing demons and angels... If that happened, yes it might be terrifying, but if I had any semblance of reason left in me, I would suspect it could be anything... yes it could even be God, Jesus, Satan, demons, or whatever. In fact, if demons are real, and they can impersonate others, a demon (or the master demon himself, Satan) could appear as an angel of light, or Jesus (another Jesus as the bible indicates may be possible).

Well if it happened on a global scale it would be pretty solid evidence that something was very awry with the scientific world view.

I could ask for some form of ID, but even the ID would be suspect.

I never thought of that. What if Jesus came back but was incarcerated as an illegal alien because he didn't have the proper green card

How would you know it was really something supernatural, or just a trick of the mind? Or if we live in a simulated world, the programmer could just be screwing with you.

Well I would take the stance that a simulated world would be supernatural insomuch as it certainly would not be explainable by scientific methodology.

You can never get around the Descarte argument of the deceitful demon that tricks your every thought into being wrong eh?

I've learned to believe nothing, not even if I see it with my own eyes pertaining to extraordinary events... and 911 immediately comes to mind here.

I think, therefore I am.

Or is it I think I am therefore I am?

Or I think I need to stop it with the meaningless philosophy and get back to the practical tasks involved in making a difference in this world

Now I suspect if Theo saw a God or a Jesus, he would instantly bow down to the apparition without even so much as asking for solid ID or proof of who it said it was.

"Hey, you must be God. You just said so!... And who can dispute the Word of the living God? God wouldn't lie after all."

What I can't figure is why someone who wants gods laws to rule the USA isn't part of Huckabee's army.

 

[beachmaster]

"It was like someone flying up to heaven.''

by Rayelan Allan

The above sentence is the way a farmer in China described an unidentified light that was seen in various provinces of China on December 11th. The following comes from an AP story:

"In Pusalu, a patch of struggling corn and bean farms 30 miles from Beijing, villagers believe cosmic forces were at play on Dec. 11. As they tell it, an object the size of a person shimmering with golden light moved slowly up into the sky from the surrounding arid mountains.

``It was so beautiful, sort of yellow,'' villager Wang Cunqiao said. ``It was like someone flying up to heaven.''

In my book, "Diana,Queen of Heaven", Chapter Four is about "Project Blue Beam". This is a NASA project. According to the late Canadian researcher, Serge Monast, Project Blue Beam had four parts. The second part of the project deals with tri dimensional optical holograms and sounds. Laser projections of multiple holographic images would be projected around the world. Each area of the world would receive a projection that was geared to its religious belief system. In other words, the Christian world will see Jesus, the Moslem world will see Mohammed and the Chinese will see Buddha.

Is the New World Order testing Operation Blue Beam in China? Will the Chinese people, who have spent the last 50 years under an atheistic communist regime, suddenly have a religious awakening brought about by golden apparitions in the sky? Will these apparitions take on form and names?

The next time the golden lights are seen over China, will villagers claim to have seen the Buddha or Kwan Lin? Or maybe Confucius or Lao-tze? Or will Chinese bureaucrats try to explain it, as they have this time, by adding more questions than answers, and making people more curious and more interested in the unusual incidents.

More:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/ufo.htm


Now I don't know how much of this is true. I do know that our state of technology is getting more advanced every day. I strongly suspect that governments hold a lot more technology than does the common man, and fail to disclose all of what they know to us (in the name of national security of course). Would I be surprised that they may have the technology to impersonate Buddha, God, aliens, demons, 2nd coming of Christ, etc.? Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Project Blue Beam is of course pure conjecture.

The Paranormal State billboard isn't... really simplistic stuff:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1351

"Paranormal State' Ad Billboard Makes You Hear Voices"

The outdoor billboard that displays an ad for Paranormal State, a ghost-themed series premiering on A&E this week, uses special technology to transmit sound so close to you that you think its inside your head.

As you walk by, the sound of a woman's voice whispers "Who's that? Who's there?... It's not your imagination." Advertisers describe it as a "chilling message."

The technology is created by Holosonic; the device is effectively an "audio spotlight" that can project sound literally right into your ears.

Previously, this technology had been used in places like museums or libraries; it creates an isolated experience while not disturbing those in the general area.

I'm guessing some readers might be disturbed by the idea of an ad that is beamed right at them as they walk down the sidewalk. However, cheerful Joe Pompei, president and founder of Holosonics, knows you'll come to love the technology:

"If you really want to annoy a lot of people, a loudspeaker is the best way to do it," he said. "If you set up a loudspeaker on the top of a building, everybody's going to hear that noise. But if you're only directing that sound to a specific viewer, you're never going to hear a neighbor complaint from street vendors or pedestrians. The whole idea is to spare other people."

"There's going to be a certain population sensitive to it. But once people see what it does and hear for themselves, they'll see it's effective for getting attention," Mr. Pompei said.​

I find myself wondering if perhaps there will be an increase in the number of people who check themselves into mental health services for a quick schizophrenia check-up.


==============
If this is what is being done in the open, what is being done in secret??


The art (and science) of deception is making huge headway in our society. Always question!

 

[beachmaster]

You can never get around the Descarte argument of the deceitful demon that tricks your every thought into being wrong eh?

Ultimately, no.

I think, therefore I am.

Or is it I think I am therefore I am?

True on both counts. Because I think, I AM (God is quoted as saying I AM also).

But what am I? It appears that I am a human, so I'll just take that part "on faith".

Or I think I need to stop it with the meaningless philosophy and get back to the practical tasks involved in making a difference in this world

Yeah, me too. But I like the meaningless philosophy.. I also like to play the harmonica in my spare time.

And since it seems that I just might die one day, I like to make attempts to contact other realms and states of mind, just in case. For practice perhaps. Just in case there really is an afterlife (I tend toward believing there is). So as another of my leisure activities, I like to play around with lucid dreaming and OBE experiments. What the hell can it hurt right?

 

[WilliamC]

Ultimately, no.


True on both counts. Because I think, I AM (God is quoted as saying I AM also).

But what am I? It appears that I am a human, so I'll just take that part "on faith".



Yeah, me too. But I like the meaningless philosophy.. I also like to play the harmonica in my spare time.

And since it seems that I just might die one day, I like to make attempts to contact other realms and states of mind, just in case. For practice perhaps. So as another of my leisure activities, I like to play around with lucid dreaming and OBE experiments. What the hell can it hurt right?

You might find these recent articles interesting.

here.

The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences
H. Henrik Ehrsson

I report an illusion in which individuals experience that they are located outside their physical bodies and looking at their bodies from this perspective. This demonstrates that the experience of being localized within the physical body can be determined by the visual perspective in conjunction with correlated multisensory information from the body.

and here.

Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness
Bigna Lenggenhager,1 Tej Tadi,1 Thomas Metzinger,2,3 Olaf Blanke1,4*

Humans normally experience the conscious self as localized within their bodily borders. This spatial unity may break down in certain neurological conditions such as out-of-body experiences, leading to a striking disturbance of bodily self-consciousness. On the basis of these clinical data, we designed an experiment that uses conflicting visual-somatosensory input in virtual reality to disrupt the spatial unity between the self and the body. We found that during multisensory conflict, participants felt as if a virtual body seen in front of them was their own body and mislocalized themselves toward the virtual body, to a position outside their bodily borders. Our results indicate that spatial unity and bodily self-consciousness can be studied experimentally and are based on multisensory and cognitive processing of bodily information.



What will be interesting to see is the reaction of some folks when religious experiences can be induced at will in anybody through brain stimulation.

Oh wait, that's already happening...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain

 

[beachmaster]

You might find these recent articles interesting.

here.

The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences
H. Henrik Ehrsson

I report an illusion in which individuals experience that they are located outside their physical bodies and looking at their bodies from this perspective. This demonstrates that the experience of being localized within the physical body can be determined by the visual perspective in conjunction with correlated multisensory information from the body.

and here.

Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness
Bigna Lenggenhager,1 Tej Tadi,1 Thomas Metzinger,2,3 Olaf Blanke1,4*

Humans normally experience the conscious self as localized within their bodily borders. This spatial unity may break down in certain neurological conditions such as out-of-body experiences, leading to a striking disturbance of bodily self-consciousness. On the basis of these clinical data, we designed an experiment that uses conflicting visual-somatosensory input in virtual reality to disrupt the spatial unity between the self and the body. We found that during multisensory conflict, participants felt as if a virtual body seen in front of them was their own body and mislocalized themselves toward the virtual body, to a position outside their bodily borders. Our results indicate that spatial unity and bodily self-consciousness can be studied experimentally and are based on multisensory and cognitive processing of bodily information.



What will be interesting to see is the reaction of some folks when religious experiences can be induced at will in anybody through brain stimulation.

Oh wait, that's already happening...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain

As skeptical as I am and have stated previously in this thread (I only claim to know one thing to be absolutely sure... I AM), you don't suppose that I've read about all aspects, and viewpoints on OBE, Astral Travel and Lucid Dreams?

I first saw Michael Persinger's God Machine on a TV show about 3 or 4 years ago. Amazing stuff. I have studied about the temporal lobes, epilepsy, etc. (just lay studies). I've considered that OBE's could be all in the mind. But I also believe they MAY be otherwise. Just maybe.

I tend to think that Astral Travel/OBE is truly the mind being outside of the physical body, while a Lucid Dream has the mind in an inner state, but still closely attached to the brain/body somehow. In one of my lucid dreams I was awestruck at just how real (and yet so obviously a fantasy world) it seemed. I was looking at myself in a mirror (not really myself, as there really was no mirror, and I really wasn't looking with real eyes). I projected these weird cartoonish characters back, and made the faces change around. Then I heard the sound of some new age music playing softly in the background. I just smiled and nodded to myself in a complete state of awareness that my real ears were hearing this music coming from my cd player next to my bed, while my mind was in a fantasy world, fully cognizant that it was a dream.

It's fun... it's radical, it's "out of this world". It's worthy of my time.

And just maybe, it could be practice for an afterlife. Then again, maybe not.

Check out the movie "What Dreams May Come" with Robin Williams some time. Lucid dreams are very similar to what is portrayed in the movie as Williams first enters Summerland/Heaven.

What I find distressing about theists (especially those who are very close to me) who claim to know the truth, and disclaim that they could ever be deceived, is that I believe they could really be taken in someday by technology and drugs, and never see it coming because they fail to QUESTION EVERYTHING.


Watch this video on how the Holosonic speakers work... it's very funny. The guy is talking one on one to people in a public library and the reactions are interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veDk2Vd-9oQ

I can just see this technology kicked up a few notches, and someone sends a sonic mind message to Theocrat saying "This is the Lord your God, bow down before me"... I just cringe to think he would just do it, and not question the "Voice of God". He doesn't even question the bible, something developed hundreds and hundreds of years ago.. why should he question the actual Voice of God? His reasoning might truly be "God said it, I believe it, that settles it. I know it's God's voice because He said it was!".

It's sad for sure... I'm more concerned with my loved ones who could be taken in than Theocrat however from the human caring standpoint. My loved ones do not advocate the elimination of free thought. I am concerned about a Theocrat because this sort of technology could create the ultimate Manchurian Candidate.

 

[Theocrat]

Que Sera, Sera

You do realize that this is usually the response when you have been either 1. telling me “I hate God,” 2. I’m going to hell, 3. I hate Jesus, 4. I “just can’t understand,” 5. Maybe “someday I’ll understand,” 6. telling me you want a theocratic nation that destroys the constitution, etc., right?

You obviously do not understand what a theocracy is if your think it destroys a constitution. It does not. A theocracy recognizes that since there are jurisdictional limits amongst family government, church government, and civil government, the powers granted to each by God are limited. Therefore, a constitution does just that for a civil government. It limits its jurisdiction over the family and the church in its enumerated powers.

I do not, nor have I advocated in these forums the destruction of the U.S. Constitution. You're just mistaken or lying when you say that, sophocles07. So, please get your facts straight about my notions of a theocracy in relation to constitutional government.

I don’t see any examples of “circular reasoning” here.

I have assumed the existence of logic because it obviouslyexists. What is 1+1? Is the answer the same as 5-4? The abstract connection hear requires the appellation “logic.”

I have assumed the existence of morality because it obviously exists. This is no different than saying I realize language exists, because it exists.

Now, is the leap from that basic fact to the idea of a divinity necessary or even desirable? I’d say no; and, just as language is not a “God-placed” trait of the human race, neither is morality—it is a developed trait.

I had to laugh when I read this because I can't believe you actually thought you got away with this. You said "you assume logic and morality because they obviously exist," but when I say I assume God's existence because He's revealed Himself to me in the Bible, you say I'm wrong? Listen to yourself! "Logic exists because it exists. Morality exists because it exists." You hypocrite. You are now just being prejudicially arbitrary, sophocles07. And what, pray tell, is so obvious about logic and morality in their existence they exist which does not equally apply to God?

Here, let me be more clear about what I say earlier about logic so you so you can understand the point I was driving at. I'll just ask you a question. Can you prove the existence of logic without using logic itself? Come on. I dare you.

It’s abundantly clear at this point that this argument is getting nowhere. This is not the result of my, beachmaster’s, WilliamC, or Kade’s inability to argue rationally, or give you adequate counterarguments to your theistic stances. IT IS the result of the intrinsic nature of your belief, one that cannot and should not be defended rationally, because it is by nature indefensible in a logical, rational way beyond a certain point (“He may exist”). In light of that fact, you proceed to conjure up every type of sophistry you can manage, from not responding to posts and claiming you have to calling posters “immature” for using “curse words” (when, added, you are calling for a destruction of the constitution in language a half-pig could have written with his hooves). SO: I’m probably going to stop posting to your replies at this point—the actual point of my above summary of your views—as we are getting nowhere.

I've expressed those same sentiments towards you a few posts back, sophocles07. Just know that I don't hate you as a person, but your philosophy of man and the world is what I take issue with. As I've said to WilliamC before, we're in a battle of worldviews here, and these worldviews have significant ramifications on politics, law, morality, even truth itself. That's where I choose to fight--in the realm of ideas because people's souls are at stake here. So, in answering the original theme of this post, I'll just conclude that I, as a Christian theist, hate "atheism." It's as simple as that.

Hopefully anyone reading over this thread will realize what a extraordinarily marginalized, delusional few people (Theocrat, Dirt Roads Scholar, Macon GA) you are that believe in a “theocracy”.

Oh, now I see you're trying to appeal to the masses in order to get them to agree with your own point of view that us theocrats are "marginalized and delusional" people. I tell you, your "logic" is impeccable, sophocles07.

Also, I would hope they notice the unsurprisingly deficient logic and, high-toned, self-righteous tone that you employ to skirt issues and trick others in argument.

Likewise, on your side of the argument, too, sophist-cles07.

 

[Theocrat]

Kade, Thanks for the Thread Topic

Agreed. I have never said that I am 100% certain of my position on anything... I do not hold to dogma, nor do I pretend to know everything... what scares me most are the people who refuse to allow themselves to be wrong...

Oh, so you think just because you and others like you who aren't 100% certain of your position on anything that others like me who hold 100% to our positions absolutely are somehow in the wrong? I see how it is. You can't be sure about your beliefs, but neither can I. How arrogant is that?

I don't pretend to know everything, because I don't. However, I believe in absolute truth and a sovereign God which that truth originates, so I rely on Him to teach and correct me when I'm wrong about my "dogma." But I will not allow people who believe such things as non-living materials produced living organisms to be the final standard of how I should think or what I should believe.

I am, as I'm sure you and the others like us are, always willing to be wrong, if someone can just prove it, just provide a suitable amount of evidence... for any position.

Do you see your assumption in your statement?! You're already assuming your position is correct, just as the theist does. The fact of the matter is theists can give innumerable examples of why "atheists" are wrong in their assumptions and beliefs, but you still won't except it if it goes against your already accepted presuppositions. You need to understand that there's a difference between "proof" and "persuasion." I, as a theist, can give you many proofs for my theistic beliefs, but those proofs still have to persuade you, as an "atheist." It works the other way, too. The problem is, once again, theists and "atheists" have very different presuppositions about nature, reality, origins, etc. that they both bring to the table when they engage in debate. Ultimately, the only way the "atheist" can be persuaded of the proofs of God is by an internal change of his nature, which only comes by God's power through His revelation.

The original article was about Theists versus Atheists, I think a point has been proven here... not all Christians and Atheists hate each other, but there are definately factions of the religious branch that are certifiably mentally deranged and a potential danger to the well being of other humans.

Agreed. "Atheism" is one of those "factions of the religious branch" of humanism, which is a potential danger to the well-being of other humans. Just ask Hitler. Oh, wait. He's in hell right now. I'm sorry.

 

[Theocrat]

Thanks, WilliamC

You might find these recent articles interesting.

here.

The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences
H. Henrik Ehrsson

I report an illusion in which individuals experience that they are located outside their physical bodies and looking at their bodies from this perspective. This demonstrates that the experience of being localized within the physical body can be determined by the visual perspective in conjunction with correlated multisensory information from the body.

and here.

Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness
Bigna Lenggenhager,1 Tej Tadi,1 Thomas Metzinger,2,3 Olaf Blanke1,4*

Humans normally experience the conscious self as localized within their bodily borders. This spatial unity may break down in certain neurological conditions such as out-of-body experiences, leading to a striking disturbance of bodily self-consciousness. On the basis of these clinical data, we designed an experiment that uses conflicting visual-somatosensory input in virtual reality to disrupt the spatial unity between the self and the body. We found that during multisensory conflict, participants felt as if a virtual body seen in front of them was their own body and mislocalized themselves toward the virtual body, to a position outside their bodily borders. Our results indicate that spatial unity and bodily self-consciousness can be studied experimentally and are based on multisensory and cognitive processing of bodily information.



What will be interesting to see is the reaction of some folks when religious experiences can be induced at will in anybody through brain stimulation.

Oh wait, that's already happening...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain

Wow! That was some great science fiction there. I think I'll watch Star Wars next.

 

[MalcolmGandi]

Theists and atheists are both wrong. Nobody knows, just admit it!

 

[WilliamC]

Wow! That was some great science fiction there. I think I'll watch Star Wars next.

Yes, the journal Science and the magazine Scientific American are great sources for science fiction instead of science fact.

By all means, keep "enlightening" us with your wisdom.

heh heh.