Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Shaddim · Dec 14, 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yeah, sure. Maybe if you and Zim work together, you'll come up with something (he seems to have physical evidence of some sort).

I'm trying to be polite and have a civil conversation. Do you want to have a decent discourse, or flick sh*t at each other? Makes no difference to me.

mikellanes · Dec 14, 2004, 12:59 AM

I always hear these stories about "I had this event, or this or that happened to me" But never anything to back it up, or they always say it is to personal to talk about or some such nonsense.

The brain is a powerful thing, you can taste, tuch, feel, smell and see something that is not there. Memories can be skewed and altered (even to believe a lie), and is much easier in children but possible at any age (especially they elderly)

I just read a study on induced trauma by psycotherapy alone, very interesting how these people thought they had trauma when only raw persuation and suggestion was used, some cases were under 6 weeks!

Not to say people don't experience things, some is very common some is unexplainable.

I have a co-worker who was explaining why she believed in ghosts, she told me a story of when she was young and she "woke up" and couldn't move and it felt like ghosts were holding her down, she knew she was awake, she could hear her family all talking, she could smell the coffee brewing, etc. She then said this happened to her several times throughout the years.

I explained to her the state of sleep paralysis which is exacly what she was experiencing, and actually quite common. She told me "I don't think so, you are crazy" and continues to believe ghosts were holding her down.

And I am the crazy one?

Shaddim · Dec 14, 2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I always hear these stories about "I had this event, or this or that happened to me" But never anything to back it up, or they always say it is to personal to talk about or some such nonsense.

The brain is a powerful thing, you can taste, tuch, feel, smell and see something that is not there. Memories can be skewed and altered (even to believe a lie), and is much easier in children but possible at any age (especially they elderly)

I just read a study on induced trauma by psycotherapy alone, very interesting how these people thought they had trauma when only raw persuation and suggestion was used, some cases were under 6 weeks!

Not to say people don't experience things, some is very common some is unexplainable.

I have a co-worker who was explaining why she believed in ghosts, she told me a story of when she was young and she "woke up" and couldn't move and it felt like ghosts were holding her down, she knew she was awake, she could hear her family all talking, she could smell the coffee brewing, etc. She then said this happened to her several times throughout the years.

I explained to her the state of sleep paralysis which is exacly what she was experiencing, and actually quite common. She told me "I don't think so, you are crazy" and continues to believe ghosts were holding her down.

And I am the crazy one?

If they had something to "back it up" how would you react?

MindFad · Dec 14, 2004, 01:08 AM

And I thought I would never use it again.

I totally got in on this conversation.

mikellanes · Dec 14, 2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
If they had something to "back it up" how would you react?

I don't know, I have never seen anything to "back it up" in regards to any physical supernatural, and I have looked.

I suppose I would first react knee-jerk as 20 years of forced Abrahamic religion will do to a person, then I would rely on several dozen years of medical and biological training to look at the "proof" and conclude from there.

zigzag · Dec 14, 2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That's the sticking point though, part of their reality exists within the imagination of mankind, and springs from it. Their formation in our minds brings about their reality in our lives. Just as a house isn't built without some forethought, no concious action (even actions considered to be "supernatural") can come to fruition without imagination or belief. If you completely will something to be, for you, it will.

That's very nice, but the question remains: do angels, Santa Clauses, spooks, spirits, ghosts, miracles, etc. exist outside of the imagination? Saying that "imagination = reality" is not sufficiently rigorous, IMO.

Shaddim · Dec 14, 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by MindFad:
And I thought I would never use it again.

I totally got in on this conversation.

and people wonder why we can't talk about this subject on MacNN?

`Fad, I want to thank you for proving my point.

Bigots and fools like you make this place much more interesting.

Shaddim · Dec 14, 2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
That's very nice, but the question remains: do angels, Santa Clauses, spooks, spirits, ghosts, miracles, etc. exist outside of the imagination? Saying that "imagination = reality" is not sufficiently rigorous, IMO.

Yes, they do, but a great deal of it begins with the imagination. Visualization is the key to most mystical phenomena. It all depends on how much of yourself you want to invest in that belief.

zigzag · Dec 14, 2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I'm trying to be polite and have a civil conversation. Do you want to have a decent discourse, or flick sh*t at each other? Makes no difference to me.

Well, my apologies. I saw Zimphire's raised eyebrows and your post concurrently and couldn't help myself - one refers to physical evidence but apparently can't produce it, even for a million dollars, and the other suggests he can demonstrate the supernatural as long as no film is taken. I don't mean to be impolite but, well, to call me skeptical would be an understatement. I will bow out because I can't really sugarcoat my opinions about this sort of thing, and it's only likely to go in the usual circles. If that represents a flaw on my part, so be it. Good luck.

mikellanes · Dec 14, 2004, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
one refers to physical evidence but apparently can't produce it, even for a million dollars, and the other suggests he can demonstrate the supernatural as long as no film is taken.

I have a super-secret but I can't show you, well I can show you but you can't have record of any of it. Seems on the up-and-up to me?

xenu · Dec 14, 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by mikellanes:

I have a co-worker who was explaining why she believed in ghosts, she told me a story of when she was young and she "woke up" and couldn't move and it felt like ghosts were holding her down, she knew she was awake, she could hear her family all talking, she could smell the coffee brewing, etc. She then said this happened to her several times throughout the years.

I explained to her the state of sleep paralysis which is exacly what she was experiencing, and actually quite common. She told me "I don't think so, you are crazy" and continues to believe ghosts were holding her down.

And I am the crazy one?

I have had a very similar experience. What did I do after? I did some research and found out what it was. At no stage did I believe I had a supernatural experience.

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2004, 02:13 AM

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,

xenu · Dec 14, 2004, 02:59 AM

wtf?

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2004, 03:02 AM

Think. About. It.

xenu · Dec 14, 2004, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Think. About. It.

Complete. Naive. Nonsence.

spacefreak · 03:24 AM

I'm not a religious guy, but there is one popular quote out there by Cambridge quantum physicist John Polkinghorn on creation that is interesting. It seems to take into account some anthropic principle-type stuff:

If you were to go into the early days of the formation of the Universe the expansion and contraction rates had to be so precise, and the margin of error so small that it would be the equivalent of taking aim at a one inch square target on the far side of the universe 20 billion light-years away�and hitting it bulls-eye.

roberto blanco · Dec 14, 2004, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, they do, but a great deal of it begins with the imagination.

no, they don't. and that's where the buck stops.

you are right to say that your imagination is your very own, and i can't really discern what you can imagine and what you can't.

even if your 'visualized' house only exists within the world of your imagination, as soon as you build it, it is there. physically. for everybody else to experience.

because in the end, that's what the the 'supernatural' really is - imagination.

Shaddim · Dec 14, 2004, 10:35 AM

That's why I've sworn off discussions like this on MacNN, too much hostility and abuse (especially from the "scientific intelligentsia"). I've enjoyed quite a few good discussions via PM with some sincere, or simply curious, members, but never in the open forum.

It's good to know that I'm usually right, though it says quite a bit about the intolerance of the supposedly open-minded Left.

Cheers, have fun while you blindly bash skulls. From now on, I'm out of these types of discussions on this forum.

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by xenu:
Complete. Naive. Nonsence.

Yes, you are professing to be wise. I know.

BTW it is "nonsense"

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm not a religious guy, but there is one popular quote out there by Cambridge quantum physicist John Polkinghorn on creation that is interesting. It seems to take into account some anthropic principle-type stuff:

Indeed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that that bulls-eye was hit out of coincidence.

mikellanes · Dec 14, 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that that bulls-eye was hit out of coincidence.

Depends widely on the theory one uses, there are many theories to the origin of the universe and the big bang is just one. Myself I seem to lean more towards a cylindrical self imploding and renewing universe, one that in itself does not negate a creator in-fact it coexists quite well with one... just not the one from the King James version of the Bible.

olePigeon · Dec 14, 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by koogz:
The beholder in this case is God, and he is in each an every one of us, weather we believe in him or not.

You're assuming she exists. In which case if she doesn't, she's not in any of us.

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
You're assuming she exists. In which case if she doesn't, she's not in any of us.

But if HE does, some of you are in for a big surprise.

Dakar · Dec 14, 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But if HE does, some of you are in for a big surprise.

A happy surprise, unless he retains that vindictiveness from the OT. (Edit: Assuming its the Christian God at all..)

roberto blanco · 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But if HE does, some of you are in for a big surprise.

and so might you, - no matter how righteous you think you are.

[hypothetically speaking, of course]

Wiskedjak · Dec 14, 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That's why I've sworn off discussions like this on MacNN, too much hostility and abuse (especially from the "scientific intelligentsia").

I see alot of hostility from both sides. Though I'll agree with you on abuse.

Wiskedjak · Dec 14, 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But if HE does, some of you are in for a big surprise.

And if "He" (assuming the Christian god is a "he") does not, some of you are in for an equally big surprise.

I mean, really, the "what if" argument is one of the worst for convincing someone to join your perspective.

"What if the Christian god exists and you choose not to believe in it? You're going to spend eternity in hell." The problem with this argument is that you're presuming only two alternatives: Christian god or no god. There are many different faiths with many different gods to choose from, each of which could be true or false. I guess the only thing the Christian god has going for it in the "what if" argument is that it is the only god (that I can think of) which threatens eternal damnation for those who choose not to worship it.

undotwa · Dec 14, 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And if "He" (assuming the Christian god is a "he") does not, some of you are in for an equally big surprise.

Strictly speaking the Christian God is He/She/It. Both man and woman are in His image.

Wiskedjak · Dec 14, 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by undotwa:
Strictly speaking the Christian God is He/She/It. Both man and woman are in His image.

Exactly, which is why I generally refer to the Christian god as "it", since it is apparently neither male nor female.

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
A happy surprise, unless he retains that vindictiveness from the OT. (Edit: Assuming its the Christian God at all..)

He is the same God in the OT as he is in the NT.

Nothing has changed.

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
and so might you, - no matter how righteous you think you are.

[hypothetically speaking, of course]

I don't think I am righteous. As a matter of fact I have on many occasions referred to myself as a sinner. And said I am no better than anyone else.

Your dishonest baseless accusations are getting tiring.

Dakar · Dec 15, 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He is the same God in the OT as he is in the NT.

Nothing has changed.

Except his personality...He's a lot more benevolent in the NT. Or vengeful in the OT. Either way.

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Except his personality...He's a lot more benevolent in the NT. Or vengeful in the OT. Either way.

No, still the same guy. Different terms.

Dakar · Dec 15, 2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Different terms.

Eh?

undotwa · Dec 15, 2004, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Exactly, which is why I generally refer to the Christian god as "it", since it is apparently neither male nor female.

I wouldn't use it. He encompasses both genders.

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Eh?

Pre and Post Messiah times.

Different terms.

Dakar · Dec 15, 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Pre and Post Messiah times.

Different terms.

Doesn't explain the massive personality change.

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Doesn't explain the massive personality change.

No personality change.

Dakar · Dec 15, 2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No personality change.

A massive change in modus operandi, then.

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2004, 01:26 AM

Again.. after the resurrection the "game" changed.

The same rules applied.

Dakar · Dec 15, 2004, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again.. after the resurrection the "game" changed.

My perception is with the introduction of Jesus, god changed. A lot more merciful from then on out.

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Dakar:
My perception is with the introduction of Jesus, god changed. A lot more merciful from then on out.

How so?

Dakar · Dec 15, 2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How so?

I seem to remember alot of peoples dying in the OT, many at his command. Not so much in the NT.

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2004, 01:44 AM

Read Revelations again.

Spliff · Dec 15, 2004, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Read Revelations again.

Tsk, tsk Zimphire. It's "Revelation" not "Revelations."

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2004, 02:08 AM

xenu · Dec 15, 2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, you are professing to be wise. I know.

BTW it is "nonsense"

Wise enough not to post in the style of a starry-eyed adolescent, and wise enough not to start a spelling/grammar pissing match.

Dakar · Dec 15, 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Read Revelations again.

Noted.

undotwa · Dec 15, 2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
A massive change in modus operandi, then.

It is important to note the times in which each testament was written. As these books were written (under the influence of the holy spirit) by men and thus bear the mark of their perspective. The Jews were a suffering people, often being suppressed by their powerful neighbours. Therefore God seemed more angry in the Old Testament because precisely the proud Jews were themselves angry, a lost people awaiting their Messiah.

The New Testament breathes a new life of optimism into the souls of men, of the arrival and return of their promised Messiah. So no, God hasn't changed his modus operandi (as God's will is one, constant and eternal), rather the perspective which we write about God has.

MindFad · Dec 16, 2004, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and people wonder why we can't talk about this subject on MacNN?

`Fad, I want to thank you for proving my point. Bigots and fools like you make this place much more interesting.

Oh, we were trying to have a serious conversation here on MacNN? Nice.

Maybe I missed it, or my PhDecoder ring was set to Serious Business�.

I thought the GIF was funny anyway; I wasn't being bigoted or mean at all. An old GIF joke about Zim's claim to have seen a person's leg grow back before his eyes�obviously through the power of Jesus.