Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: firefromabove
Nope. Theists who acknowledge the existence of their Maker are spiritually superior. That is the purpose of life and that's why we were placed here on earth.

You mean, to defy God's Commandment, "You Shall not Murder," "You shall love your neighbor,"You shall not bear false witness," and "You shall not misuse God name"?

Your divine and devout priests have defy all that in the past. And you still believe you are free from sin like prophets?

originally posted by: firefromabove
Those who don't acknowledge God are not very different from cattle. Like cattle, they just operate on instinct. Their lives revolve around eating, sleeping and mating. They lack faith, so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.

Yup, exactly the mindset of primitive people who live over two thousand years ago. It's pity they get destroyed by Great Flood and suffer many major global catastrophes.

Since when did God command us to have faith in apostles and the likes?
Nope, I dont see any references to God's command us to believe in Mark or Luke or Paul or Eusebius or Emperor Constantine, Uthman or Ali or Dalai Lama etc...

Only the blind faithfully operate on instinct. And that is not science.

a reply to: firefromabove

...and the darkness grows.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

A heathen "scientific illiterate" if I do question bad explanations and want real explanations instead of distractions.

Did you read the article I linked to? Then question away. What do you find questionable about it?

originally posted by: carewemust
WHEN ABLE TO CHOOSE, people choose the religion which delivers what they feel will be the best post-Earth experience, don't they?

if that's true, then how much more disingenuous could one get??

You choose the religion that best suits your 'wants' for an afterlife? Kind of like which car gives you the best oomph??

With science, you don't get to 'choose' the outcome. If you see phenomena A and want to discover how it works, you come up with tests and experiments. Maybe you WANT test 10 to be the explanation because it fits in with all your other theories and explanations.

But it turns out test 10 is wrong and test 7 was correct. You can't 'choose' the other because you like it. You choose it because it's correct.

Again, another reason why science isn't a religion or something to 'pick and choose' adhoc.

Destroy all science books and they will all come back with exactly the same theories and results. The same is not true for religion, which is a man-made construct to explain the unexplainable.

a reply to: firefromabove

Here is what you came for.

*

Those who don't acknowledge God are not very different from cattle. Like cattle, they just operate on instinct. Their lives revolve around eating, sleeping and mating. They lack faith, so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.

You can’t possibly know many atheists, or have much experience of atheism besides confrontational online encounters like this one, or you would know at first–hand what slanderous nonsense this is.

This is what you think an atheist is, based on no actual knowledge of us. It is an image you hate, but it is an image you have created yourself. Some here would call it a straw man, but the correct word for it, I think, is ‘projection’.

Such imaginative projections of the hated Other are common. They are always composed of the negative aspects of our own selves, for the things we despise and fear the most are always within us.

Be warned, fellow member: we become what we hate.

This thread has served its purpose. Go in peace.

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Clinically inferior? Lol

Nope. Theists who acknowledge the existence of their Maker are spiritually superior. That is the purpose of life and that's why we were placed here on earth.

Those who don't acknowledge God are not very different from cattle. Like cattle, they just operate on instinct. Their lives revolve around eating, sleeping and mating. They lack faith, so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.

oh, so you are a FAKE christian. touting egotism as spirituality. it all makes sense now. and just like any sociopathic charlatan you get all insecure when you have to share the pie with a less pompous source of authority. someone will inevitably prove their way of doing things yields actual results and leave you looking less than competent. hence why you made a strawman thread to try and slander science. the funny part is you seem to think we wouldnt figure it out. or maybe you just dont care? hmmm.

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Clinically inferior? Lol

Nope. Theists who acknowledge the existence of their Maker are spiritually superior. That is the purpose of life and that's why we were placed here on earth.

Those who don't acknowledge God are not very different from cattle. Like cattle, they just operate on instinct. Their lives revolve around eating, sleeping and mating. They lack faith, so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.

This just proves that you are a sociopath who will rationalize anything to make yourself out to be superior in some way. Good luck with that.

a reply to: Astyanax

The fact that it has nothing to do with out of body experience and is another phenomena.

It is like making assumptions on how the experience of parachuting is to a human body by experimenting on people riding a bike. It does not prove or disprove anything.

If they at least knew how to put the bodies in vibrating states then at least they would be somewhat on the right track.

I did enjoy the comments:

Your discoveries are meaningless.. You didn't test the brain on human while having an out of body experience. You tested the brain of a person thinking there having one....

this has so many holes in it it isn't even funny. i don't understand how this has anything to do with an out of body experience. maybe some sort of wierd disasociated experience, but not an out of body experience. How could they have thought it could?

to all you who think this explains everything about OBEs, you are seriously stupid. if you can't even see the problems with this article then i don't want to hear it. OBEs are actually suprisingly commen. they are not people "Just looking for attention". they have very commen themes. they are something of interst that should be studied. not this, this is just crap. not sure why they even did the experiment.

Was the Majority of Quantum Physics scientist wrong in their assumption of quantum phenomena only happened in near absolute zero?
Funny that people are following "Scientists" who have been proven wrong instead of theories by people who have been right in the past when others where not.

Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in “Microtubules” Inside Brain Neurons Corroborates Controversial 20-Year-Old Theory of Consciousness
www.elsevier.com... controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: [post=22284955]Astyanax

Whats the dif?

The fact that it has nothing to do with out of body experience and is another phenomena.

It is like making assumptions on how the experience of parachuting is to a human body by experimenting on people riding a bike. It does not prove or disprove anything.

If they at least knew how to put the bodies in vibrating states then at least they would be somewhat on the right track.

I did enjoy the comments:

Your discoveries are meaningless.. You didn't test the brain on human while having an out of body experience. You tested the brain of a person thinking there having one....



this has so many holes in it it isn't even funny. i don't understand how this has anything to do with an out of body experience. maybe some sort of wierd disasociated experience, but not an out of body experience. How could they have thought it could?

to all you who think this explains everything about OBEs, you are seriously stupid. if you can't even see the problems with this article then i don't want to hear it. OBEs are actually suprisingly commen. they are not people "Just looking for attention". they have very commen themes. they are something of interst that should be studied. not this, this is just crap. not sure why they even did the experiment.

OOBE is just that. It is an experience, not an event. There was recently a young lady who claims she can do this at will. She volunteered for a study and put herself into this state while inside an MRI. Guess what? It's just a trick she does with her brain which causes the visual cortex to deactivate and the part of her brain that processes body movement is turned on to 11, hence giving her the real feeling that she is floating. Her imagination does the rest.

To better understand what was going on, the researchers conducted a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study of her brain. They found that it surprisingly involved a "strong deactivation of the visual cortex." Instead, the experience "activated the left side of several areas associated with kinesthetic imagery," such as mental representations of bodily movement.

Here are several sources including the paper written by the investigative team.

journal.frontiersin.org...

The present single-case study examined functional brain imaging patterns in a participant that reported being able, at will, to produce somatosensory sensations that are experienced as her body moving outside the boundaries of her physical body all the while remaining aware of her unmoving physical body. We found that the brain functional changes associated with the reported extra-corporeal experience (ECE) were different than those observed in motor imagery. Activations were mainly left-sided and involved the left supplementary motor area and supramarginal and posterior superior temporal gyri, the last two overlapping with the temporal parietal junction that has been associated with out-of-body experiences. The cerebellum also showed activation that is consistent with the participant’s report of the impression of movement during the ECE. There was also left middle and superior orbital frontal gyri activity, regions often associated with action monitoring. The results suggest that the ECE reported here represents an unusual type of kinesthetic imagery.

sploid.gizmodo.com...

This is worth a thread of it's own.

a reply to: Woodcarver

What she describes doesn't seem to be the same as what others describe as OOBE.

The participant describes the experience in the following terms: “I feel myself moving, or, more accurately, can make myself feel as if I am moving. I know perfectly well that I am not actually moving. There is no duality of body and mind when this happens, not really.

science (in the sense of those who pursue scientific study as a profession) doesnt deny or reject the phenomenon of OOBE. it just doesnt presume to attribute such experiences to the presence of a soul or to use it as a springboard for spiritual dogma. there is a process folks, a process that dignifies and protects the generation of data for the purpose of minimizing human error. patience is a virtue and possibly one of the most important tools in the scientific method.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Clinically inferior? Lol

Nope. Theists who acknowledge the existence of their Maker are spiritually superior. That is the purpose of life and that's why we were placed here on earth.

Those who don't acknowledge God are not very different from cattle. Like cattle, they just operate on instinct. Their lives revolve around eating, sleeping and mating. They lack faith, so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.

This just proves that you are a sociopath who will rationalize anything to make yourself out to be superior in some way. Good luck with that.

Read the post of the person I replied to

He is an atheistic sociopath who thinks religious people are - his words - "clinically inferior"

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: imwilliam

I might hurt you or your likes. Love myself far to much to harm a hair on my head. Aside from the clinically inferior ie religious. I cant ever see myself harming another human bean.

Clinically inferior? Lol

Nope. Theists who acknowledge the existence of their Maker are spiritually superior. That is the purpose of life and that's why we were placed here on earth.

Those who don't acknowledge God are not very different from cattle. Like cattle, they just operate on instinct. Their lives revolve around eating, sleeping and mating. They lack faith, so there's no reason for me to think of them as fully human.

oh, so you are a FAKE christian. touting egotism as spirituality. it all makes sense now. and just like any sociopathic charlatan you get all insecure when you have to share the pie with a less pompous source of authority. someone will inevitably prove their way of doing things yields actual results and leave you looking less than competent. hence why you made a strawman thread to try and slander science. the funny part is you seem to think we wouldnt figure it out. or maybe you just dont care? hmmm.

The atheist I replied to said religious people (billions of humans) are "clinically inferior"

Sort your own camp out first, hypocrite.

a reply to: Astyanax

Read the post I replied to

One of YOUR people, an atheist, thinks religious people are "clinically inferior"

This is what he also said:

I honestly want to steralize you. Your genetic lineage needs to cease, along with anyone else who can not grasp reality. You disturb me to no end.

Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???

a reply to: firefromabove

Are you religious?

2nd

a reply to: firefromabove

Care to comment on that? Or would you rather give atheists who think of non-atheists as "clinically Inferior" a free pass???

Why should he or anyone? He's no doubt aware that people are individuals no matter how often ATSers insist otherwise.

Atheists are no more likely to come off a production line template than religious people.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

But what is knowledge in light of Gödel's incompleteness theorems? If nothing can be proved absolutely true or false in a universe that might consist of nothing but vibrations and stillness. It could be argued that science is just starting to realize concepts that religion has understood for thousands of years. That seemingly opposite or contrary forces might be complementary and interconnected to everything and nothing (aka Ying Yang symbol in Taoism) .

If science is a religion, then at least we finally have a religion that can back up it's claims.

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

But what is knowledge in light of Gödel's incompleteness theorems? If nothing can be proved absolutely true or false in a universe that might consist of nothing but vibrations and stillness. It could be argued that science is just starting to realize concepts that religion has understood for thousands of years. That seemingly opposite or contrary forces might be complementary and interconnected to everything and nothing (aka Ying Yang symbol in Taoism) .

Science will continue to beat its head against the limits of knowledge and can make no headway. Incompleteness demonstrates that the harder we try, the more elusive the goal.

That is because hard naturalism reveals that it must be a false proposition.

If so, then there must exist a supernatural.

Except from acknowledging the necessity that a supernatural must exist, science cannot probe the supernatural with objects in the natural. Science is simply the wrong tool for that task.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
If science is a religion, then at least we finally have a religion that can back up it's claims.

... this week.

Next week it will all have to be revised.