Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah I reminded him that our entire calendar is based around the coming of the historical Jesus, and he said it wasn't evidence for his historicity.

It's NOT. You have been told this before and I'll say it again. The calendar started counting the years since Jesus in 525AD, NOT from the moment of his birth, and it was done based on FAITH in the gospels and not on any historical or forensic evidence. The calendar is NOT evidence .. it's faith. Seriously dude .. you make us Christians look like idiots.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

It's not uncommon to attribute the cure of a cancer or the cure of other serious diseases to Jesus and God. It's just human nature but there is zero evidence for it.

When there is no scientific or medical explanation for the cure, and the person was praying for it and was immediately cured, it's a miracle. You said there were no miracles in the world. You are wrong. There are a lot of documented ones. Miracles that were extremely investigated and scrutinized. I gave two examples of this. There are a lot more that if you looked objectively at them, you'd see it.

I said I was going to stop posting in this thread and yet I did it again.
I really need to stop reading it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1

It's not uncommon to attribute the cure of a cancer or the cure of other serious diseases to Jesus and God. It's just human nature but there is zero evidence for it.

When there is no scientific or medical explanation for the cure, and the person was praying for it and was immediately cured, it's a miracle. You said there were no miracles in the world. You are wrong. There are a lot of documented ones. Miracles that were extremely investigated and scrutinized. I gave two examples of this. There are a lot more that if you looked objectively at them, you'd see it.

I said I was going to stop posting in this thread and yet I did it again.
I really need to stop reading it.

Sometimes there could be no adequate explanations like I said earlier in this thread because we don't have the knowledge or some other conditions which are unknown to us have allowed the cure of an advanced cancer for example. That doesn't imply the works of a supernatural force. At the same time you need to consider the very many others who die every day due to tragic circumstances and there is nobody to help them (making the supernatural force very selective on who should be saved)

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Sometimes there could be no adequate explanations like I said earlier in this thread because we don't have the knowledge or some other conditions which are unknown to us have allowed the cure of an advanced cancer for example. That doesn't imply the works of a supernatural force.

Spontaneous instant cures when there is no medical or scientific explanation, while the person is praying and asking for a cure, is a miracle. It's not a matter of 'gee .. we just don't understand how cancer works' .. because we DO understand how it works. I could list other miracles too ... people getting hearing back, people seeing again, etc. There are plenty. OBJECTIVELY speaking, miracles have to be a possibility because we do understand how things work and these miracles go against nature.

At the same time you need to consider the very many others who die every day due to tragic circumstances and there is nobody to help them (making the supernatural force very selective on who should be saved)

True, but irrelevant to the question of 'miracles'. God can do what He wants. He's in charge.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

You seem to have a misunderstanding.

No, friend. That'd be you.

In Christianity, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Even the disciples had doubts, denied, and/or betrayed Christ...

Perfect moral sense doesn't mean perfect moral conduct.

Hence the irrelevance of attributing morality to other species that we cannot communicate with at that level to know if they have a moral understanding.

By the way, I'll thank you not to try schooling me in Christian ethics and doctrine. Several earnest and able teachers, including some men of the cloth, educated me intensively in these matters when I was young. One is the emeritus bishop of my diocese and we remain friends to this day. When I want divinity lessons from random persons online I will ask for them, thank you very much.

But you suggested that 'saints' thought themselves to be morally superior? What am I to conclude?

Actually, I have read those posts

Good for you.

Ascribing a conceptual framework to instinct explains that it does exist, but it explains nothing about why, nor does it explain how it was 'installed' in the organism

It wasn't installed, it emerged, as all traits do, through natural selection.

So those learned behaviours become so deeply encoded as to be passed to later generations not as learned behaviour, but as innate programming - instinctual. How does that happen? Are abstract mental paradigms encoded genetically? Surely you see any explanation of process that includes 'magic happens here' is not particularly robust rationally or scientifically. That might be acceptable for someone who professes faith in the supernatural, but for an atheist scientific pragmatist?

Arguing that morality is prescriptive suffers from the issue that morality appears innate, before the appearance of the authority figure

You have this back to front. Reprisals by what you call the 'authority figure' ⎻ in reality, any member or members of the kin group higher than the individual in the social order ⎻ are the 'winnow of nature' that selects for 'moral' behaviour. It originated among the first successful social species, not in late-coming humans.

Again, how does this learned behaviour become intrinsic. According to natural process; at every death, previously learned behaviour is terminated, unless it can be transmitted somehow, organism to organism, and if it is to become intrinsic, how does it pass into some heritable form? Even in epigenetics it is hard to make a case for such encoding and transference.

The success, socially, of psychopathy and of social conflict leading to war, murder and manslaughter, shows that as a survival mechanism, morality is is notably and obviously ineffective.

On the contrary, it shows that the winnow is working effectively.

'Winnowing' in an environment where a species is already barely holding onto existence, could also easily go very wrong and eliminate the species totally. It might work to control overpopulation but is far too risky when population is low.

Psychopaths are individuals without properly developed moral instincts. Their handicap allows them to game the system of reciprocity on which all societies are based ⎻ for a time. Psychopathy is a very risky reproductive strategy, because the individual rarely prospers for long before the justified ire of the whole community falls upon and suppresses (or eliminates) it. Very few psychopaths reproduce effectively because of this; but some do, and so this (very rare) genetic predisposition does get passed on.

Psychopaths often reproduce, but have been known to kill their spouses, relatives and offspring if they challenge the 'top dog' - take a look at the lines of secession of ancient Rome and other world history.

They very usually seek roles where they can dominate others and insulate themselves successfully from risk or attack. They are the ultimate expression of 'the selfish gene'. Just take a look at the types of people who are usually at the top in governments, even now.

The heritability of psychopathy and sociopathy point decisively, in fact, to a genetic basis for morality. The existence of other reproductive strategies and selective forces is not precluded by this. All things are grist to nature's mill.

Or, absolute power corrupts, absolutely!

Ascribing complex outcomes in diverse environments to single cause is common in science, because it is easier than dealing with complexity. It does not mean all the other influencing factors just go away.

In the scientific method it is common to design experiments that eliminate other potential causes. You can't do that in speculating about the past.

People have given their lives in place of those who are not kin.

Of course. The enormous success of Homo Sapiens is due precisely to the emergence of social groupings (tribes, cultures, civilizations) in which ever larger numbers of ever more distantly related individuals treat one another as if they were parents or siblings. The great moral innovation of Jesus Christ was to propose extending the circle of kin-group belonging to the whole human race, viz. 'love thy neighbour as thyself.'

The rest of your post ⎻ 'reductionist mindset,' etc ⎻ merits no response.

I think it is pertinent. I don't think science has the toolset required to deal with the issues of morality.

One can be a moralist and a scientist, but one can also be a scientist and be totally immoral and/or amoral.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Sometimes there could be no adequate explanations like I said earlier in this thread because we don't have the knowledge or some other conditions which are unknown to us have allowed the cure of an advanced cancer for example. That doesn't imply the works of a supernatural force.

Spontaneous instant cures when there is no medical or scientific explanation, while the person is praying and asking for a cure, is a miracle. It's not a matter of 'gee .. we just don't understand how cancer works' .. because we DO understand how it works. I could list other miracles too ... people getting hearing back, people seeing again, etc. There are plenty. OBJECTIVELY speaking, miracles have to be a possibility because we do understand how things work and these miracles go against nature.

At the same time you need to consider the very many others who die every day due to tragic circumstances and there is nobody to help them (making the supernatural force very selective on who should be saved)

True, but irrelevant to the question of 'miracles'. God can do what He wants. He's in charge.

And yet the cure of an advanced cancer or self cure let's say, cannot be attributed to supernatural forces and prayers. So not a miracle driven by the power of the invisible entity/deity. An unknown mechanism is the correct terminology for which cancer could be cured.

I find it difficult to understand an entity with such great power interfering in very few cases of advanced cancer when at the same time nothing happens to thousands upon thousands of professionals who suffer and die on a daily basis.

a reply to: chr0naut

I have no wish to bandy words with you. I have stated the facts as they are known to science (and understood by me). If you want to persist with your wish-fulfilling fantasies even after you have bern informed of the truth, that is no affair of mine.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
And yet the cure of an advanced cancer or self cure let's say, cannot be attributed to supernatural forces and prayers. So not a miracle driven by the power of the invisible entity/deity. An unknown mechanism is the correct terminology for which cancer could be cured.

So your response is that when cures happen spontaneously while being prayed for, and there is no scientific or medical explanation, it is anything except a miracle. It's just something that we don't understand yet. Well ... you are welcome to think that way if you wish, but it's rather closed minded in my opinion.

You said there are no miracles. I have shown that there are. You reject the very thought that there could ever be a miracle. So no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.

I find it difficult to understand an entity with such great power interfering in very few cases of advanced cancer when at the same time nothing happens to thousands upon thousands of professionals who suffer and die on a daily basis.

That's just the way it is. It's God's business. He heals some. Others He allows to suffer for His reasons. Lessons to be learned? Karma? Who knows. But it's irrelevant to the fact that God does perform miracles. He doesn't have to perform every miracle that's requested of Him in order for those that He does to be authentic.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Kurokage

How much of what you think to be true is first hand knowledge?

I'd wager a guess and say 95% is third hand knowledge.

But there's the big difference, I can go and read the published papers, check the sicence, or even perform my own experiments if I want to check the data.
When it comes to religious 'belief' or 'faith', I have to take the word of a 2000 year old dusty book, full of stollen stories, tall tales and contradictions, which I'm not allowed to question, it's the 'word' of God!!

I see you also said 'what I think to be true'. I look for evidence not truth.

originally posted by: daskakik

According to him it is the word used in some info shared with him.

By 'enlightened ones' by any chance? Maybe even like "Ramtha the Enlightened One" (a name+title that comes up in my commentary before, at the end of the article about the New Age Movement)?

The first term "enlightened ones" also including humans who claim to be enlightened ones (Latin: Illuminati). Such as those that were the leading figures in the "Enlightenment" (also referred to on wikipedia as "the Age of Enlightenment").

Part 19—17th to 19th century—Christendom Grapples With World Change (Religion’s Future in View of Its Past; Awake!—1989)

...

A Triple Threat

As soon as modern science was born in the 17th century, ... Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. In the light of scientific “facts,” religious claims suddenly seemed precariously unprovable. Science was new and exciting; religion seemed outdated and dull.

This attitude toward religion was intensified by the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that swept Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Stressing intellectual and material progress, it rejected political and religious authority and tradition in favor of critical reasoning. This, supposedly, was the source of knowledge and happiness. “Its ancestral roots,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica, were found “in Greek philosophy.”

The Enlightenment was mainly a French phenomenon. Prominent leaders in France included Voltaire and Denis Diderot. In Great Britain it found spokesmen in John Locke and David Hume. Advocates were also found among U.S. founding fathers, including Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. In fact, the separation of Church and State demanded by the U.S. Constitution is a reflection of Enlightenment ideas. Outstanding members in Germany were Christian Wolff, Immanuel Kant, and Moses Mendelssohn, grandfather of composer Felix Mendelssohn.

Kant, suspicious of religion, is said to have defined “enlightenment” as “the human being’s release from self-imposed tutelage.” By this, explains Allen W. Wood of Cornell University, Kant meant “the process by which human individuals receive the courage to think for themselves about morality, religion, and politics, instead of having their opinions dictated to them by political, ecclesiastical, or scriptural authorities.”

During the second half of the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution began, first in Great Britain. Emphasis switched from agriculture to the production and manufacture of goods with the aid of machines and chemical processes. This upset a largely agricultural and rural society, sending thousands of people crowding into cities for work. Pockets of unemployment, housing shortages, poverty, and various work-related ills resulted.

Would Christendom be able to cope with this triple threat of science, Enlightenment, and industry?

Easing God Out, if Ever So Gently

People persuaded by Enlightenment thinking blamed religion for many of the ills of society. The idea that “society should be constructed according to the preordained blueprints of divine and natural law,” says The Encyclopedia of Religion, “was replaced by the notion that society was, or could be, constructed by man’s own ‘artifice’ or ‘contrivance.’ A secular, social humanism thus came into being that, in turn, would beget most of the philosophical and sociological theories of the modern world.”

These theories included the “civil religion” advocated by influential French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It centered upon society and human involvement in its concerns rather than upon a divine Being and his worship. French memoirist Claude-Henri de Rouvroy advocated a “New Christianity,” while his protégé Auguste Comte spoke of a “religion of humanity.”

In the late 19th century, the American movement known as the social gospel developed among Protestants; it was closely related to the European theories. That theologically based idea asserted that the main duty of a Christian is social involvement. It finds great support among Protestants to this day. Catholic versions are found in the worker-priests of France and among the clergy of Latin America who teach liberation theology.

Christendom’s missionaries also mirror this trend, as a 1982 Time magazine report indicates: “Among Protestants, there has been a shift toward greater involvement with the basic economic and social problems of the people . . . For an increasing number of Catholic missionaries, identification with the cause of the poor means advocacy of radical changes in political and economic systems​—even if those changes are being spearheaded by Marxist revolutionary movements. . . . Indeed, there are missionaries who believe that conversion is fundamentally irrelevant to their true task.” Such missionaries evidently agree with French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who once suggested: ‘The real object of religious worship is society, not God.’

Obviously, Christendom was easing God out of religion, if ever so gently. Meanwhile, other forces were also at work.

Replacing God With Pseudoreligions

...

In the words of Bob Marley in his song "Rat Race":

Don't forget your history
Know your destiny [see Revelation 18:21-24]
In the abundance of water
The fool is thirsty

Revelation 22:1,2 (last chapter in the Bible):

And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of its main street. On both sides of the river were trees of life producing 12 crops of fruit, yielding their fruit each month. And the leaves of the trees were for the healing of the nations.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
And yet the cure of an advanced cancer or self cure let's say, cannot be attributed to supernatural forces and prayers. So not a miracle driven by the power of the invisible entity/deity. An unknown mechanism is the correct terminology for which cancer could be cured.

So your response is that when cures happen spontaneously while being prayed for, and there is no scientific or medical explanation, it is anything except a miracle. It's just something that we don't understand yet. Well ... you are welcome to think that way if you wish, but it's rather closed minded in my opinion.

You said there are no miracles. I have shown that there are. You reject the very thought that there could ever be a miracle. So no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.

I find it difficult to understand an entity with such great power interfering in very few cases of advanced cancer when at the same time nothing happens to thousands upon thousands of professionals who suffer and die on a daily basis.

That's just the way it is. It's God's business. He heals some. Others He allows to suffer for His reasons. Lessons to be learned? Karma? Who knows. But it's irrelevant to the fact that God does perform miracles. He doesn't have to perform every miracle that's requested of Him in order for those that He does to be authentic.

There could be cases where our understanding is not adequate and we can't have an answer for a self cure of an advanced cancer or a cancer at any stage (for example). But that doesn't imply divine intervention and that's all I am saying. It is 'miraculous' in a sense but not in the way you described it (as having supernatural causes)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: daskakik
...
Worth repeating, Proverbs 30:12:

There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes

But has not been cleansed from its filth.* [Lit., “excrement.”]

Oh, Bob Marley on the matter:

Written Nonsense (1955)

Never before has so much been written that is nonsensical. In Roman times Paul told Christians not to act like the people of the nations, who “walk in the unprofitableness of their minds.” (Eph. 4:17, NW) Just how sadly unprofitable some of the writings of those minds must have been we can imagine from a discovery at Pompeii. It was the custom back then to write on the walls of buildings. Some shrewd reader and commentator of the writings of others had written on a wall in Pompeii the following in Latin: “It is a wonder, O wall, that thou hast not yet crumbled under the weight of so much written nonsense.”

26,765,482 posts and counting.

...

For those who seem more interested in spending their time on here talking rather than listening, in particular listening to Jehovah when He has something important to tell everyone (compare Bob Marley's song "So much things to say" that I embedded before).

This will only take a much shorter amount of your time...

“But Jehovah is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.”—Hab. 2:20, AS.

“But Jehovah is in his holy temple.

Be silent before him, all the earth!”—Hab. 2:20, NW.

And before at this point I would embed the video concerning Isaiah 45 (which I described as a message from Jehovah to all mankind, for our own good, see my previous commentary). Since I already used that video, I'll change it up a bit now.

Understanding (Aid to Bible Understanding)

...

RELATIONSHIP TO KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM

...

Understanding must be based on knowledge, and works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, and the greatest and most fundamental fact is God, his existence, his invincible purpose, his ways. Understanding enables the person to relate the knowledge he acquires to God’s purpose and standards and thereby assess or evaluate such knowledge. The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Prov. 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Prov. 2:10, 11; 18:15.

Proverbs 1:1-6 shows that the “man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction, to understand a proverb and a puzzling saying, the words of wise persons and their riddles.” These must not be things said merely to pass the time away in idle conversation, for wise persons would not customarily waste time in such manner, but must refer to instruction, questions and problems that discipline and train the mind and heart in right principles, thereby equipping the learner for wise action in the future. (Compare Psalm 49:3, 4.) Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is the “prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Prov. 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Prov. 17:24) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1 Tim. 6:3-5; see KNOWLEDGE; WISDOM.

“he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions, constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain.” (1 Timothy 6:4,5)

“Make sure of the more important things.”—PHIL. 1:10.

“Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine” (1 Thessalonians 5:20,21)

“But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

I know, I've used the last 3 a bit much in this thread now. But they're worth repeating anyway. Especially in comparison with the content of some other comments on ATS. Or my own words.

a reply to: Venkuish1

You still can't name any physical and biochemical process that has supernatural causes.

Wouldn't naming it imply, we have an explanation and therefore make it natural?

What science loves to do with stuff they dont understand but have to acknowledge is name them dark, or black, kind of like religion with their shadow people and dark entities...

The two establishment are more alike than you can imagine, and just like religious people there is no productive debate possible at least not one that would go beyond the walls of their respective echo chambers...

Intellectual incest is a real thing...

Im not falling in any trap i see the trapped and laugh about how easily they can be distracted trough dichotomy so they forget they're trapped and focuse it all on those others that are trapped and they want them to help to get into their trap...

God, science both look like fools that have succumbed to their own confirmation bias. This thread is a perfect example.

The pace you guys are going at, it's amazing, impressive.

I don't think you can stop to think for very long though at that pace. Let alone listen to something that might actually be important and beneficial to you in terms of "understanding" and "an accurate knowledge of truth" (2 Timothy 3:7).

2 Timothy 3:1-9

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith. 9 Nevertheless, they will make no further progress, for their folly will be very plain to all, as it was with those two men.

Ecclesiastes 1 (written by Solomon, the ancient king and educator mentioned in my signature, the one who was granted a request from Jehovah and asked for Godly wisdom, and received it):

The words of the congregator,* [Or “assembler; convener.”] the son of David, the king in Jerusalem.

2 “The greatest futility!”* [Or “vanity.”] says the congregator,

“The greatest futility! Everything is futile!”

3 What does a person gain from all his hard work

At which he toils under the sun?

4 A generation is going, and a generation is coming,

But the earth remains* [Lit., “is standing.”] forever.

5 The sun rises,* [Or “shines forth.”] and the sun sets;

Then it hurries back* [Or “returns panting.”] to the place where it rises again.

6 The wind goes south and circles around to the north;

Round and round it continuously circles; the wind keeps making its rounds.

7 All the streams* [Or “winter streams; seasonal streams.”] flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full.

To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.

8 All things are wearisome;

No one can even speak of it.

The eye is not satisfied at seeing;

Nor is the ear filled from hearing.

9 What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one may say, “Look at this—it is new”?

It already existed from long ago;

It already existed before our time.

11 No one remembers people of former times;

Nor will anyone remember those who come later;

Nor will they be remembered by those who come still later.

12 I, the congregator, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I set my heart to study and explore with wisdom everything that has been done under the heavens—the miserable occupation that God has given to the sons of men that keeps them occupied.

14 I saw all the works that were done under the sun,

And look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind.

15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,

And what is lacking cannot possibly be counted.

16 Then I said in my heart: “Look! I have acquired great wisdom, more than anyone who was before me in Jerusalem, and my heart gained a great deal of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 I applied my heart to knowing wisdom and to knowing madness* [Or “extreme foolishness.”] and to knowing folly, and this too is a chasing after the wind.

18 For an abundance of wisdom brings an abundance of frustration,

So that whoever increases knowledge increases pain.

Mind you, verse 17 is talking about a different type of "wisdom" than verse 13, (verse 13 is talking about the Godly wisdom he received from Jehovah).

Which takes us back to what I quoted before concerning the question: "How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?"

a reply to: Kurokage

Trust no one but your own senses is my advice when looking for evidence...

Conduct every experiment for yourself or if that's not possible leave it at that.
3rd hand knowledge that seems to work with the rest, but you can't verify it and I'd be prudent to accept any more evidence that builds on it.

You don't have to do anything if you feel like that I'd say your a snowflake that is easily intimidated by strong convictions.
But hey I agree religious people and their convictions can be intimidating, especially if you don't know what the fundamental nature of it all is about. If I take this thread, I see the other bunch becomes quite vicious using a bunch of lowbrow debating tactics, when confronted with that uncertainty they try to escape via science...

make no mistake you belive a reality or you wouldn't be here, faith in your own existence is essential to stay manifested. it's why this whole mechanism is embedded deep into the subconscious.

I mean, I guess, unless of course your not a human with a sense of I...
I heard people being absorbed by a sort of collective consciousness.
Are you somone with a sense of self?
Where is the evidence that you are who you feel like being?

Coming back to some of the lyrics in Bob Marley's song "So much things to say":

Well, I and I and I no come to fight flesh and blood
But spiritual wickedness in high and low places
So while they fight you down
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises [Jah is the shortened version of the name Jehovah, a fact not negated by anyone applying it to someone else, or anyone believing a man is, or even can be, the incarnation of God; which doesn't fit by the way, but I don't want to quote the Scriptures on that now. But just also a quick reminder for those who believe and have been taught that Jesus, when he was on earth as a man, was the incarnation of Jehovah God. So don't complain about Bob Marley doing something similar concerning that guy from Ethopia, when you're believing something equally silly.]

Quoting a text from the video above (the main text used there which is talking about the same spiritual war that Bob Marley was singing about). Ephesians 6:10-17:

10 Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of his strength. 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 For this reason take up the complete suit of armor from God, so that you may be able to resist* [Or “withstand; stand your ground.”] in the wicked day and, after you have accomplished everything, to stand firm.

14 Stand firm, therefore, with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having your feet shod in readiness to declare the good news of peace. 16 Besides all of this, take up the large shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the wicked one’s burning arrows. 17 Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word, [referring to the Bible]

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Kurokage

Trust no one but your own senses is my advice when looking for evidence...

Conduct every experiment for yourself or if that's not possible leave it at that.
3rd hand knowledge that seems to work with the rest, but you can't verify it and I'd be prudent to accept any more evidence that builds on it.

You don't have to do anything if you feel like that I'd say your a snowflake that is easily intimidated by strong convictions.
But hey I agree religious people and their convictions can be intimidating, especially if you don't know what the fundamental nature of it all is about. If I take this thread, I see the other bunch becomes quite vicious using a bunch of lowbrow debating tactics, when confronted with that uncertainty they try to escape via science...

make no mistake you belive a reality or you wouldn't be here, faith in your own existence is essential to stay manifested. it's why this whole mechanism is embedded deep into the subconscious.

I mean, I guess, unless of course your not a human with a sense of I...
I heard people being absorbed by a sort of collective consciousness.
Are you somone with a sense of self?
Where is the evidence that you are who you feel like being?

Trying to tell someone to conduct every experiment or don't believe it seems a tad rediculous, I'm not going to build a fusion reactor or nuclear device in my garage. I have empirical data I can read and learn from if im unable to test the theroies myself, Calling scientific research lowbrow is ironically a bit lowbrow...

I'm to experienced (older) in life to be intimaded by morons and their incorrect religious covictions/fallacies and fairytale books but if it makes you feel better calling people snowflakes, then good for you and your 'moral' high ground.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1

You still can't name any physical and biochemical process that has supernatural causes.

Wouldn't naming it imply, we have an explanation and therefore make it natural?

What science loves to do with stuff they dont understand but have to acknowledge is name them dark, or black, kind of like religion with their shadow people and dark entities...

The two establishment are more alike than you can imagine, and just like religious people there is no productive debate possible at least not one that would go beyond the walls of their respective echo chambers...

Intellectual incest is a real thing...

Im not falling in any trap i see the trapped and laugh about how easily they can be distracted trough dichotomy so they forget they're trapped and focuse it all on those others that are trapped and they want them to help to get into their trap...

God, science both look like fools that have succumbed to their own confirmation bias. This thread is a perfect example.

Science is a process by which we learn another more and more and it isn't based on dogma and beliefs. There could be bad apples and bad science from time to time but science is a self correcting process. Religion and God are base their existence on unchallenged and divine-unchanging dogma where knowledge is revealed and not gained through research, experimentations, observations, measurements. A huge difference between these two.

a reply to: whereislogic

So don't complain about Bob Marley doing something similar concerning that guy from Ethopia, when you're believing something equally silly.]

'That guy from Etheopia', could you be more insulting to the Rastafarians, you mean the late King Haile Selassie.
You could at least name him and get your refrences right.

A little help...

Rastafari was intrinsically linked with Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974. He remains the central figure in Rastafari ideology.......
On being crowned, Haile Selassie was given the title of "King of Kings and Lord of Lords"

originally posted by: FlyersFan

It's NOT. You have been told this before and I'll say it again. The calendar started counting the years since Jesus in 525AD, NOT from the moment of his birth, and it was done based on FAITH in the gospels and not on any historical or forensic evidence. The calendar is NOT evidence .. it's faith. Seriously dude .. you make us Christians look like idiots.

Lol yeah I never said it was used right away. The AD/BC system picked off the proleptic Julian calendar, which would allow an accurate telling off history. If the Jewish people can keep their lineage to Abraham then yeah the church fathers and the ensuing priests and monks would have been able to know when Jesus was born.

You're making Catholics look bad, and defending atheist talking points that don't make sense.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I said I was going to stop posting in this thread and yet I did it again.
I really need to stop reading it.

Yeah your word is unreliable