Weird shit and what it means to you?

[Dead Kennedy]

OK, so i was reading Neil's reply to e-space on another thread, where
he talks about his experiences with what we rational atheists would
probably call "woo-woo".

It got me thinking about my own "weird experience" that i have
supressed because it doesnt "make sense".

Q: What "woo-woo" experiences (if any) have other rational atheists
had?

So, Im in my early-mid 20s and I'm calling on a girlfriend who is
"properly out there". The full henna haired, pixies in the garden,
pyramid healing (attractive and available) whack-job.
As i get closer to her front gate I start feeling ill, my stomach has
knotted up and I've broken into a sweat. I had had a nasty dose of
food poisoning a few months before and i was thinking "here we go
again, 24 hours with my head in a bucket", i was that bad.
The closer i got to my G/Fs front door , the worse it became so that
when she answered the door i could barely stand. She asked what was
wrong and i explained the symptoms and that i felt it would be better
if we called the date off. Immediately she replied , "dont worry, ive
been cleaning my crystals, their energy is much higher at the moment"
<told you ;0) >, once we get away down the street you'll feel fine.

She was 100% spot on, the further we walked from the house, the better
i felt. Once we had gotten 100yards or so, i was back to feeling fine.

weird!

over to you guys.

[klytu]

On Oct 24, 7:10 am, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

klytu: Yeah, that *was* weird! I accept stories about weird
experiences at face value, but I don't try to interpret them or assign
any type of meaning to them without a lot of verifiable information.

I've had several "out of body" experiences during my life, but they
always occurred when I was sleeping so I just assumed they were vivid
dreams. In one such experience, as a teenager, I went to a house that
I had never been to or seen before. About a year later, I visited a
friend of my grandmother's. I immediately recognized the house as the
one I had visited "out of body" and I knew details of the furnishings
and the layout of the entire property. I asked both my grandmother and
her friend if I had been there before - perhaps as a small child. They
both confirmed that I hadn't. Some of the pieces of the furniture that
I remembered were only a couple of years old, so they would not have
been there even if I had seen the house as a child.

I don't know what to make of the last experience. At the time I felt
sure it was evidence of being out of body. Now I think there are other
possibilities. Perhaps my grandmother had mentioned her friend's house
in conversation at some point and I consciously forgot, but the memory
surfaced in dreams and my mind filled in the details. It's possible
that I visited a house with a similar layout (there were many such
houses in that general neighborhood); and I might have seen the
furniture in a store. My mind might have combined all the details and
created a kind of false memory. I haven't had such an experience in a
long while, but I keep a notebook and pen by my bed so I can jot down
details - just in case something like that happens again!

[showmethehoney]

wow...how spiritual...and your an atheist!!! shocking!

On Oct 24, 7:10 am, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

[showmethehoney]

neat....none of my OBE's had anything to do with planet earth...there
were no people, buildings, ground, etc. nothing that happens during
the course of daily activity transpired. when people describe OBE's
where they look down and see their body lying on the bed, i describe
these as the kindergarten steps of OBE. keep going, dont let the
ceiling be the limit. of course, i dont think there is much we can do
to control these things, maybe welcome them into our lives and thats
it. many people stop these things from happening. also, i was not
sleeping when i went on my little 'trip'.

> details - just in case something like that happens again!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

I haven't ever had such an experience for which I didn't have an
explanation of some sort except for two "coincidences".

Both involved me stopping while on my way somewhere just for a moment
or two and then coming across a really bad accident that just happened
within a moment or two that likely would have been me if I hadn't
stopped.

Not that strange but it gave me pause when it happened.

[Dead Kennedy]

--
No Gods, No Masters

"No man ever believes that the Bible means
what it says; he is always convinced that
it says what he means."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[showmethehoney]

and have you come to any conclusions about it?

> [George Bernard Shaw]- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> and have you come to any conclusions about it?

I have concluded that if I could get that lucky when I buy a lottery
ticket I could be very rich.

[showmethehoney]

but since you cant, wouldnt you conclude that luck has nothing to do
with it?

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> but since you cant, wouldnt you conclude that luck has nothing to do
> with it?

Nope.

[showmethehoney]

okay...now i can understand your atheistic stance :-)

[TLC]

DK,

Why did your girl need to ask you what's wrong? If her crystals
imagined energy had anything to do with the way you were feeling
wouldn't she be feeling the same?

Don't tell me that her magic rabbits foot with the horse-shoe on was
protecting her!

On 24 Oct, 12:10, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> okay...now i can understand your atheistic stance :-)

I shouldn't have thought it difficult to understand without that. I am
glad that you said atheistic instead of atheist. the suffix -ic being
indicative of 'resembles'. My 'stance' does indeed resemble atheism.

> On Oct 24, 9:44 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [showmethehoney]
>>
>> > but since you cant, wouldnt you conclude that luck has nothing to do
>> > with it?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> --
>> No Gods, No Masters
>>
>> "No man ever believes that the Bible means
>>  what it says; he is always convinced that
>>  it says what he means."
>> [George Bernard Shaw]
>

--
"Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed
and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and
governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them."

[Thomas Paine]

[grisha]

Why?

[Dead Kennedy]

they were entangled in her dreamcatcher.

It was probably that she didnt have a mild dose of the nova virus.

it got me a couple of years ago and the symptoms were exactly the same
so im going with coincidence.

[showmethehoney]

seemingly. why dont you write a book about it. it should take you 5
minutes or so.

On Oct 24, 10:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [showmethehoney]
>
> > okay...now i can understand your atheistic stance  :-)
>
> I shouldn't have thought it difficult to understand without that. I am
> glad that you said atheistic instead of atheist. the suffix -ic being
> indicative of 'resembles'. My 'stance' does indeed resemble atheism.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:44 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [showmethehoney]
>
> >> > but since you cant, wouldnt you conclude that luck has nothing to do
> >> > with it?
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >> --
> >> No Gods, No Masters
>
> >> "No man ever believes that the Bible means
> >>  what it says; he is always convinced that
> >>  it says what he means."
> >> [George Bernard Shaw]
>
> --
> "Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed
> and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and
> governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them."
>

> [Thomas Paine]- Hide quoted text -

[showmethehoney]

why? cuz i was kidding ;-)

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> seemingly. why dont you write a book about it. it should take you 5
> minutes or so.

About what?

--
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
or who said it, no matter if I have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason and your
own common sense."
[Buddha]

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 24, 3:10 am, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

My experience is that my experiences with the "woo woo" are fun,
weird, and fairly meaningless. In the other post I described a
"premonitional" dream about an apartment building, a severed arm, and
a playing card. What kind of relevance does that have to my life? In
the final analysts tt amounts to a cheap parlour trick.

If these events aren't repeatable, if we can't make them happen at
will, then they are just coincidence. And there are so many events in
a lifetime that there's bound to be some odd coincidences. The only
explanation I can think of for people like e_space who take these
events to mean that they are special, chosen, different, etc, is
narcissism.

I am, however, fascinated with dreams. We spend 1/3 of our life in
possession of a body that can fly, teleport, walk through walls, etc.
Carlos Castenada talked about becoming conscious while dreaming, and
described the pnemonic technique of finding your hands in your dreams
to serve as a reminder that you are dreaming. I've been trying to do
this ever since, and have done it about half a dozen times. I can
honestly say those half dozen times of being conscious in my dreams
are among my favourite memories of my entire life.

But amazing at it is, there's nothing supernatural about it. We all
dream. If anything, becoming conscious of dreaming is just becoming
more conscious, period.

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly. And I agree that Lucid dreaming is a huge amount of fun.

I haven't been able to make it happen deliberately but when it does happen it's fascinating.

At one point I dreamed that I was dreaming that I was dreaming. Lol.

I literarlly "woke up" three times and only third was actually waking up.

And I remembered each dream at each level.

The brain is an amazing thing and the sleep process of the brain is fascinating.
 

 

--
High Priestess of Ribbonology
God Is A Ribbon!
All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Sky
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[flying gorilla]

Coincidence + ego= theism
In all fairness, it does seem like we're programmed in such a way so
that coincidences can seem profound and purposeful. Humans have a real
problem with the idea of "randomness". The chances of a particular
coincidence happening may be a million to 1, but the chances of
SOMETHING coincidental happening SOMEWHERE is close to 100%. Millions
of such occurrences must happen every day. Its just that when they
happen to people we don't know, we're not impressed!

I said pretty much this same thing in regards to evolution on another
thread, but I don't think people read it, so I'm repeating myself. I
think its kind of an important point in explaining why some people buy
into the idea of an omnipotent god.

[showmethehoney]

as stated before, none the incidents that i have mentioned happened
during sleep so please dont confuse them with dreaming. i have never
said that i am special or chosen, so please dont put words in my
mouth. i did say that the experiences were special to me, so maybe
that confused you?

imo, people who reject the notion of spirit are less likely to ever
experience it. abject denounciation of something simply because there
is no proof it exists is more of a sign of narcissism than anything i
have done imo. because "I" dont believe it, its not true....PERIOD. i
dont work that way and cannot understand how any intelligent person
can, but like joan behar says, "but hey, thats just me".

On Oct 26, 12:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> more conscious, period.- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 26, 9:22 am, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Coincidence + ego= theism

That's a great formula.

I'd break it down further like this:

Coincidence + ego = prophet
Gullibility + prophet = theist

> In all fairness, it does seem like we're programmed in such a way so
> that coincidences can seem profound and purposeful.

Sometimes they are. I'm reading about chaos theory now, and that's
exactly what it's about - the patterns that emerge from chaos.

> Humans have a real
> problem with the idea of "randomness". The chances of a particular
> coincidence happening may be a million to 1, but the chances of
> SOMETHING coincidental happening SOMEWHERE is close to 100%. Millions
> of such occurrences must happen every day. Its just that when they
> happen to people we don't know, we're not impressed!

Theists are though, don't you think? I mean, they seem pretty
impressed when at stories that people saw the Virgin Mary in the sky,
etc. In fact, I wonder if the less a theist knows the "visionary," the
more likely they are to believe them?

> I said pretty much this same thing in regards to evolution on another
> thread, but I don't think people read it, so I'm repeating myself. I
> think its kind of an important point in explaining why some people buy
> into the idea of an omnipotent god.

I agree 100%. Religious belief boils down to some kind of
psychological need.

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> as stated before, none the incidents that i have mentioned happened
> during sleep so please dont confuse them with dreaming. i have never
> said that i am special or chosen, so please dont put words in my
> mouth. i did say that the experiences were special to me, so maybe
> that confused you?

> imo, people who reject the notion of spirit are less likely to ever
> experience it. abject denounciation of something simply because there
> is no proof it exists is more of a sign of narcissism than anything i
> have done imo. because "I" dont believe it, its not true....PERIOD. i
> dont work that way and cannot understand how any intelligent person
> can, but like joan behar says, "but hey, thats just me".

Do you meditate?

[showmethehoney]

maybe you posted it under another of your many monkey/gorilla/ape niks
and forgot to read it?

what you consider coincidences could be something entirely different.
you were not there, did not have or share the experience, so why make
a difinitive comment about it? funny, you dont seem to need a reason
to state things as factual, yet you ask others to do exactly that.
life's a two way street. i suggest you try to learn how to drive that
way, once you come down from the trees that is ;-)

[showmethehoney]

i introspect, leave out the welcome mat for visitation, etc. i started
to do so at a very young age after experiencing some unusual
feelings.

meditation is dangerous. one learns to turn the mind off and may
forget how to turn it back on ;-)

> [Buddha]- Hide quoted text -

[showmethehoney]

how about this formula?

lack of belief + nothing = atheism

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> i introspect, leave out the welcome mat for visitation, etc. i started
> to do so at a very young age after experiencing some unusual
> feelings.

So you don't allow yourself deep meditative states, then?

> meditation is dangerous. one learns to turn the mind off and may
> forget how to turn it back on ;-)

There are ways to avoid that. The simplest being an alarm clock (yes,
I am serious). Actually negating consciousness in a meditative state
is extremely difficult and requires much practice.

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> how about this formula?

> lack of belief + nothing = atheism

belief + nothing = theism.

'nothing' cancels out in each giving:

lack of (theistic) belief = atheism

(theistic) belief = theism

So I don't see any surprises in your equation.

[Sebastian]

You are saying people should not believe that something is not true
based on the fact that no proof exists for it. I agree with this. But
this stance should also tell you that you should not believe that
something IS true even if there is no proof to the contrary. So far
there is no proof of the existence of a spirit, nor is there any proof
of non-existence of spirit. So the most rational position to take is
to say "we don't know and we don't understand".

If you had an out-of-body experience this is in no way a proof of
spirit.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 26, 10:14 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> as stated before, none the incidents that i have mentioned happened
> during sleep so please dont confuse them with dreaming.

The incidents that I described happened when I was fully awake. The
ones you've described happened in a state of near-sleep. I'm skeptical
that it wasn't sem-conscious dreaming, a state I've experienced many
times. In fact, until you provide objective and verifiable evidence
that spirits exist, that's what I'm concluding your experiences were.

> i have never
> said that i am special or chosen, so please dont put words in my
> mouth.

You don't need to say that. All you have to do is act like it.

> i did say that the experiences were special to me, so maybe
> that confused you?

What you say is secondary to how you act. You're on here promoting
yourself as a visionary - I lack belief in visionaries. You act like
an attention starved child - I'm trying to avoid name calling, but how
can I say this without offending you?

> imo, people who reject the notion of spirit are less likely to ever
> experience it.

But you have to ignore my experiences, and the experiences of other
skeptics and atheists, to maintain that elitist position. Why are your
experiences more profound than mine? My answer is, you think you are
special, even if you don't say it explicitly.

> abject denounciation of something simply because there
> is no proof it exists is more of a sign of narcissism than anything i
> have done imo.> because "I" dont believe it, its not true....PERIOD.

I guess your opinion needs to be revised, since atheists/skeptics say
"I lack belief in God/spirit world because of a lack of valid
supporting evidence. If you provide valid evidence that God/the spirit
world exists then I will cease to be an atheist/skeptic."

Testimonials are not valid evidence that God/spirits exist. The
rational explanation for your experiences (and mine) are dreams,
hallucinations, ego, and coincidence.

> i dont work that way and cannot understand how any intelligent person
> can, but like joan behar says, "but hey, thats just me".

Passive aggressive assertions of superiority are just more evidence
that you are a narcissist.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[showmethehoney]

i didnt call the method i used to tie in with my consciousness,
meditation. maybe i did meditate, but was unaware of the terminology
at the time. i started sorta clearing my mind of everything so that
stuff would come to me when i was young, and have experienced enough
deep stuff to last a life time. about 30 years ago i decided not to
exercise my mind in order to find out any more since i had to coexist
with a race of animals that did not understand the experiences that i
was describing. i have since met several who have had similar
experiences, but i still get blank stares most of the time when i
mention some of these experiences.

[showmethehoney]

you may say that "we don't know and we don't understand" if you have
not had such an experience. those who have will not say this however.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[flying gorilla]

> Theists are though, don't you think? I mean, they seem pretty
> impressed when at stories that people saw the Virgin Mary in the sky,
> etc. In fact, I wonder if the less a theist knows the "visionary," the
> more likely they are to believe them?

Those stories only resonate if they already have the belief, I think.
Christians don't think much of similar experiences had by Muslims, for
example. So I think your formula actually starts the cycle. Then once
they are convinced by the profit, they take all related coincidences
to be "signs from their deity". All unrelated ones are filtered out
as just coincidences.

Aside from all of the "Christ's face in the tortilla" type stuff, most
coincidences are less specific. Its funny how theists will insist that
they know the message in the strange occurrence is coming from the god
they already belief in. Christians think coincidences are signs from
the Christian god, and when such things happen to a Muslim, its still
the Christian god talking, trying to get the Muslim to stop being a
Muslim. They use their belief as evidence for their believe.

[showmethehoney]

i guess so....nothing from nothing leaves nothing. to me, that
basically describes atheism. the way i look at it, the book of atheism
would read "i do not believe in god because there is no proof of
such". thats it, period.

> [Buddha]- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Too much. Atheism does not require that anyone provide a specific
reason for not believing in god.

Atheism is not believing in a god.

Period. You don't need a special book for this, just the dictionary.

[showmethehoney]

if it was semi consciousness, why i did i open my eyes during the
'experiment'?

from what i remember, you recalled several dreams that you had, like
the talking tiger dream? am i mistaken? the fact that the day after
your dream you actually 'fainted' because some of the things in your
dream were being mentioned during a song on the radio, seems to
indicate that something unusual was happening, yet now you write this
off as conicidental?

what vision am i promoting? i stated i had a neat experience but have
never tried to really describe it to you. if i was promoting a utopian
vaction property, i would include pictures and a map of how to get
there. i have done neither.

how am i acting like an attention starved child? if you make
statements like this, please explain what you mean by them.

PLEASE dont worry about offending me or calling me names. after all, i
am quite used to the latter if you know what i mean. ;-) nothing you
can say has the potential to offend me. your opinion of me is as
likely to cause me as much pain as getting tickled by a feather, so
fill your boots.

its very easy to ask for proof of something that you should know by
now cannot be proved, yet you do so continuously. i think its time to
move on and/or try to find a spiritual connection yourself.

you are welcome to call me a narcissist until the cows come home, yet
you are high on your own opinion, despite the fact that it is soley
based on the disbelief of others. you welcome that moniker of atheist,
even though this simply means you disbelieve what someone else
believes in. not much to write home about from my viewpoint.

[showmethehoney]

right...which is why is said the book is really just blank paper with
a dictionary definition???? guess you missed that huh?

[Drafterman]

On Oct 26, 3:37 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> right...which is why is said the book is really just blank paper with
> a dictionary definition???? guess you missed that huh?

No. I'm trying to explain to you that there is no "book". You do
understand the difference between a blank book and no book, right?

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> i guess so....nothing from nothing leaves nothing. to me, that
> basically describes atheism. the way i look at it, the book of atheism
> would read "i do not believe in god because there is no proof of
> such". thats it, period.

Hmmmm, try starting with Theravada or really early Buddhist writings.
You will be surprised at the numbers of words that can be used in the
context of what you call nothing.

In Wei Shi (my favoured system) there are two exercises:

Nothing is possible.
It is and it is not.

Gives a whole new feel to nothing.

Enjoy experiencing your experiences.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 26, 11:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> if it was semi consciousness, why i did i open my eyes during the
> 'experiment'?
>
> from what i remember, you recalled several dreams that you had, like
> the talking tiger dream? am i mistaken? the fact that the day after
> your dream you actually 'fainted' because some of the things in your
> dream were being mentioned during a song on the radio, seems to
> indicate that something unusual was happening, yet now you write this
> off as conicidental?

Narcissists are always poor listeners.

> what vision am i promoting?

You aren't promoting a vision. You are promoting yourself as a
visionary. Someone who has spiritual experiences. You are promoting
yourself as a saviour. Someone who charges to the rescue of the poor
helpless souls that are being called names (!) and are too weak to
defend themselves. To me, you're just an milder, immature variation of
Joe (a Catholic who posts in this group).

> i stated i had a neat experience but have
> never tried to really describe it to you. if i was promoting a utopian
> vaction property, i would include pictures and a map of how to get
> there. i have done neither.

I don't regard drawing maps that as the criteria for narcissism.

> how am i acting like an attention starved child? if you make
> statements like this, please explain what you mean by them.

See above. There's lots more, and if you want me to follow you around
pointing it out, I can. But since you tell me in your very next
paragraph that what I think doesn' matter to you (oh no, you're not
superior, at all), why bother?

> PLEASE dont worry about offending me or calling me names. after all, i
> am quite used to the latter if you know what i mean. ;-) nothing you
> can say has the potential to offend me. your opinion of me is as
> likely to cause me as much pain as getting tickled by a feather, so
> fill your boots.
>
> its very easy to ask for proof of something that you should know by
> now cannot be proved, yet you do so continuously.

If something can't be proved than that's an indication it doesn'
exist.

> i think its time to
> move on and/or try to find a spiritual connection yourself.

You go ahead. As long as people who believe things that don't exist
are trying to run candidates for President and are hijacking airplanes
and flying them into buildings I will still feel the need to tell them
I don't believe them. You're going to have a hard time convincing me
that theist squabbling isn't a dangerous social problem.

> you are welcome to call me a narcissist until the cows come home, yet
> you are high on your own opinion, despite the fact that it is soley
> based on the disbelief of others. you welcome that moniker of atheist,
> even though this simply means you disbelieve what someone else
> believes in.

Tu quoque fallacies are not evidence that you aren't a narcissist.

> not much to write home about from my viewpoint.

I know. Why should the opinions of lesser beings have any effect on
you?

[Drafterman]

On Oct 26, 3:37 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> right...which is why is said the book is really just blank paper with
> a dictionary definition???? guess you missed that huh?

No. If I missed it, I couldn't be responding directly to it when I
say: There is no book, blank or otherwise.

[showmethehoney]

bad listener? okay....so you had your talking tiger dream while you
were awake...fine with me. i like daydreaming too. if it wasnt a
daydream, maybe you could write a book about how to have a dream while
you are wide awake. you could make a million! you know, you could
teach them to dream they are on a tropical island having a great time,
while in reality they are having a nasty toothache. dont buy aspirin,
buy my book! ;-)

promoting myself as a saviour? wow...youve really lost it now! a
protector from trolls maybe, but isnt that a bit of a loose use of the
word?

people who claim to have spiritual experiences are automatically
labelled as promoting themselves as visionaries? wow, you love to
stretch things out dont you?

i dont know joe, so whatever that post means has no relevance to me.

please explain "I don't regard drawing maps that as the criteria for
narcissism". you told me i was promoting myself as a visionary. if
such was the case, would i not be trying to entice people to follow me
or share the experience? if not, what would be the point?

i am fine with who i am, and if i was to get manic every time people
disagreed with me, didnt like me or whatever, i would have stressed
myself into a coffin long ago. does it matter to you what i think of
you neil?

[showmethehoney]

jokes dont go over well with you do they? you must be a real stick in
the mud at parties! i dont think ive ever read anything from you that
even approaches joviality.

[Drafterman]

On Oct 26, 5:54 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> jokes dont go over well with you do they?

Ones that aren't funny usually don't.

> you must be a real stick in
> the mud at parties! i dont think ive ever read anything from you that
> even approaches joviality.

Of course, because what I post here constitutes the entire sum of my
being.
Or, maybe my humor is too high brow and subtle for you. But what am I
saying, I've never posted anything funny here, ever.

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_thread/thread/1f2eb3f44f814741
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_thread/thread/747b70c926a5e292

[showmethehoney]

posting anti christian stuff put together by others equates to having
humor?

On Oct 26, 6:09 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 5:54 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > jokes dont go over well with you do they?
>
> Ones that aren't funny usually don't.
>
> > you must be a real stick in
> > the mud at parties! i dont think ive ever read anything from you that
> > even approaches joviality.
>
> Of course, because what I post here constitutes the entire sum of my
> being.
> Or, maybe my humor is too high brow and subtle for you. But what am I
> saying, I've never posted anything funny here, ever.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_thread/...http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_thread/...

[Drafterman]

On Oct 26, 6:18 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> posting anti christian stuff put together by others equates to having
> humor?

Given the humor content of your "material" so far, I wouldn't expect
you to get it.

>
> On Oct 26, 6:09 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 5:54 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > jokes dont go over well with you do they?
>
> > Ones that aren't funny usually don't.
>
> > > you must be a real stick in
> > > the mud at parties! i dont think ive ever read anything from you that
> > > even approaches joviality.
>
> > Of course, because what I post here constitutes the entire sum of my
> > being.
> > Or, maybe my humor is too high brow and subtle for you. But what am I
> > saying, I've never posted anything funny here, ever.
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_thread/......

[Sebastian]

What makes you prefer the supernatural explanation to a more earthly
one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience)?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 26, 1:53 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> bad listener? okay....so you had your talking tiger dream while you
> were awake...fine with me. i like daydreaming too. if it wasnt a
> daydream, maybe you could write a book about how to have a dream while
> you are wide awake. you could make a million! you know, you could
> teach them to dream they are on a tropical island having a great time,
> while in reality they are having a nasty toothache. dont buy aspirin,
> buy my book!  ;-)
>
> promoting myself as a saviour? wow...youve really lost it now! a
> protector from trolls maybe, but isnt that a bit of a loose use of the
> word?

Nope. You cast yourself in the role of a White Knight, not me. Once,
twice, I'wouldn't give it a passing thought. But you tell us how
you're protecting the weak from name calling constantly. So I'm
concluding that's how you think of yourself, based on the evidence
you've given me.

> people who claim to have spiritual experiences are automatically
> labelled as promoting themselves as visionaries?

By defintion, if you've had a vision then you're a visionary. And if
you tell people about your visions, then you are promoting yourself as
a visionary.

> wow, you love to
> stretch things out dont you?

I don't see it as a stretch at all.

> i dont know joe, so whatever that post means has no relevance to me.
>
> please explain "I don't regard drawing maps that as the criteria for
> narcissism". you told me i was promoting myself as a visionary. if
> such was the case, would i not be trying to entice people to follow me
> or share the experience?

It's a slippery slope. First you have to convince others to believe
you, which you are working hard away at. After you've done that then
you can get them to follow you.

> if not, what would be the point?

Attention. Narcissists crave attention. If you can't get good
attention at least get some attention.

> i am fine with who i am, and if i was to get manic every time people
> disagreed with me, didnt like me or whatever, i would have stressed
> myself into a coffin long ago. does it matter to you what i think of
> you neil?

If I thought you were rational it would. But I don't, so I take
everything you say with a grain of salt. You don't have much
credibility with me, but I'll listen to what you have to say. For
instance, you called me a narcissist, which I'm perfectly prepared to
consider, but the reason you gave was a logical fallacy. Essentially,
you said I was a narcissist because I'm saying you are a narcissist.
You'll have to do better than that, because I can dismiss it as sour
grapes on your part.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 26, 11:09 am, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Theists are though, don't you think? I mean, they seem pretty
> > impressed when at stories that people saw the Virgin Mary in the sky,
> > etc. In fact, I wonder if the less a theist knows the "visionary," the
> > more likely they are to believe them?
>
> Those stories only resonate if they already have the belief, I think.
> Christians don't think much of similar experiences had by Muslims, for
> example.

I guess I'm referring to Christians interacting with other Christians.
I've noticed that there sometimes is a rivalry about who is the
bestest Christian amongst Christians who know each other, and they can
get fairly skeptical about their rivals; whereas if someone who has
written a book comes to town, and their book describes relatively the
same testimonials as their rivals, they fall all over the book writer.
That's what I was getting at.

> So I think your formula actually starts the cycle. Then once
> they are convinced by the profit, they take all related coincidences
> to be "signs from their deity".  All unrelated ones are filtered out
> as just coincidences.

And "signs from their devil." Yes.

> Aside from all of the "Christ's face in the tortilla" type stuff, most
> coincidences are less specific. Its funny how theists will insist that
> they know the message in the strange occurrence is coming from the god
> they already belief in. Christians think coincidences are signs from
> the Christian god, and when such things happen to a Muslim, its still
> the Christian god talking, trying to get the Muslim to stop being a
> Muslim. They use their belief as evidence for their believe

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[showmethehoney]

i didnt open any of the links....i was looking for original humor from
you, not just something written by somebody else supporting your
beliefs that you can laugh along with while ridiculing the other
side....im sure you can get quite giggly if someone says something
funny against xtians. does that mean you are humorous? methinks not.

[showmethehoney]

a saviour is usually considered someone who is going to save the
world. i havent heard it used in the context you are promoting.

im not trying to convince anybody of anything, just expressing my
experiences. sorry that you are so misled by my words.

another blunder. i called you a narcissist because all you really care
about is your opinion. you put words in my mouth, make one assumption
after another. in other words, you are telling me what im like when
really, you dont know me from adam (or eve or 'god'). you call me an
elitist, tell me that i feel superior to everyone around me, that im
arrogant, and a bunch of other adjectives that nobody that knows me
irl calls me. your feeling that you can label me without spending any
time to see how i treat people irl is an indication that you think you
know a lot about me, when actually the reverse is true. your opinion
is all that counts. if you dont want to call that narcissistic, so be
it, no big deal to me ;-)

also, could you please answer a question i asked you....do you care
what i think about you?

[showmethehoney]

no references required, just another statement made as fact. by the
way, ever heard two atheists disagree?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 26, 5:58 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> a saviour is usually considered someone who is going to save the
> world. i havent heard it used in the context you are promoting.

Some people think they are going to save the world, starting by
properly lecturing of all the name callers.

> im not trying to convince anybody of anything, just expressing my
> experiences. sorry that you are so misled by my words.

Sorry that I don't believe that your words mean what they say.

> another blunder. i called you a narcissist because all you really care
> about is your opinion.

I also care about the opinion of rational people.

> you put words in my mouth, make one assumption
> after another.

Where exactly did I put any words in your mouth?

> in other words, you are telling me what im like when
> really, you dont know me from adam (or eve or 'god').

Rather, I think you are telling us what you're like in an unconscious
sort of way.

> you call me an
> elitist,

Actually, I said "imo, people who reject the notion of spirit are less
likely to ever experience it" was an elitist position, but sure, if
you take an elitist position then I guess that makes you an elitist.

> tell me that i feel superior to everyone around me, that im
> arrogant,

I actually never used the word "arrogant," but I notice someone else
did in another post just now.

> and a bunch of other adjectives that nobody that knows me
> irl calls me.

This is real life.

And we do know you because you talk about yourself. Who you think you
are doesn't seem to match with what you're telling us, in my opinion.

> your feeling that you can label me without spending any
> time to see how i treat people

Except I've seen your show for long enough for me to conclude that
you're fairly narcissistic.

> irl is an indication that you think you
> know a lot about me, when actually the reverse is true. your opinion
> is all that counts. if you dont want to call that narcissistic, so be
> it, no big deal to me ;-)
>
> also, could you please answer a question i asked you....do you care
> what i think about you?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I care what you think - otherwise I
wouldn't be talking to you - but I also don't believe what you think
because you have lost all credibility with me.

[showmethehoney]

well neil...it seems you have a habit of disbelief and thats no skin
off my nose. on the other hand, you should probably readjust your
sights cuz your way off line. i trust this will be the end of this
meaningless conversation that is based on your opinion and has nothing
really to do with the facts of who i am.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 27, 5:23 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> well neil...it seems you have a habit of disbelief and thats no skin
> off my nose. on the other hand, you should probably readjust your
> sights cuz your way off line.

Another sign of a narcissist is that they try to control what people
think of them.

> i trust this will be the end of this
> meaningless conversation that is based on your opinion and has nothing
> really to do with the facts of who i am.

I don't think this conversation is meaningless. I think it is
interesting. Psychological need is a rational explanation for why
people believe are religious/spiritual.

[Answer_42]

We are incredibly heedless in the formation of our beliefs, but find
ourselves filled with an illicit passion for them when anyone proposes
to rob us of their companionship. It is obviously not the ideas
themselves that are dear to us, but our self-esteem, which is
threatened.
"
-- James Harvey Robinson

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 26, 5:00 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> no references required, just another statement made as fact.

I stated clearly that it was my personal experience with theists. The
clue is when I said "I've noticed that there sometimes is a
rivalry..." My reference is me. If you wish to argue that I wasn't
observing what I thought I was observing, then go ahead. I'm prepared
to be wrong. But I think the fact that there are so many different
Christian cults supports my observation that the religious can form
rivalries.

> by the way, ever heard two atheists disagree?

If two atheists disagreed about atheism then one of them wouldn't be
an atheist. Otherwise, if they're disagreeing about football, then
they're football fans who happen to be atheists in their spare time.

I keep thinking this stuff would be obvious to people, but I keep
being wrong.

[Neil Kelsey]

Thank you James Harvey Robinson (whoever you are). Good quote.

I think there are many more psychological issues involved than just
self-esteem though. Take Rappoccio. His issue was childhood
indoctrination. The fact that his parents loved him and treated him
well may have made deconverting that much more difficult. But I
seriously doubt that self-esteem was ever a problem for him. Or take
Stonethatbleeds. Maybe he has too much self-esteem? Some are
sociopaths. Some are schizophrenic. Some are too dumb to realize that
they are too dumb. I'm just saying it seems that every psychological
condition is another reason for someone to be a theist.

Self-esteem is an issue for the narcissists though, and there seem to
be tons of them who are believers. This description of one category of
narcissist (from Wikipedia) seems appropriate for narcissistic
believers:

fanatic type - including paranoid features. A severely
narcissistically wounded individual, usually with major paranoid
tendencies who holds onto an illusion of omnipotence. These people are
fighting the reality of their insignificance and lost value and are
trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies
and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition of support
from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person
with a grandiose mission.

[showmethehoney]

the very fact that you put the word religious and spiritual together
is a true indication that you have no idea about spirit.

[showmethehoney]

i guess youre right...atheism isnt really a topic is it?

[showmethehoney]

despite your promotions that i am a narcissist, i would equate that
description more with you than i. i have no idea how you came to the
conclusion that i meet that criteria. WAY OFF neil....

> with a grandiose mission.- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 27, 9:22 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> the very fact that you put the word religious and spiritual together
> is a true indication that you have no idea about spirit.

Sure I do. They both involve belief in supernatural beings. And
sometimes religious/spiritual involves trying to convince others that
supernatural beings communicate with you.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dead Kennedy]

ive been reading this and LMFAO thinking about how it relates to this
group.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

just give the first paragraph a scan.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 27, 10:40 am, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> ive been reading this and LMFAO thinking about how it relates to this
> group.
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
> just give the first paragraph a scan.

Fantastic! Hilarious, but also not! Thanks! It completely relates to
this group. This sentence from that paragraph describes all those
theists who have been here trying to argue science recently:

"It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the
person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent."

I've run into a similar thought relating to narcissists - if they
believe they are superior to everyone, then how could anyone possibly
convince them they have a problem?

It is always great to find the right words, and even a whole study
(!), for some concept that's been churning around semi-coherently in
my brain. I'm printing this out right now, and giving a copy tonight
to my wee daughter, who lives this stuff. Thanks again.

[Dead Kennedy]

glad to do it.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Dead Kennedy <potentat...@googlemail.com> wrote:

ive been reading this and LMFAO thinking about how it relates to this
group.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

just give the first paragraph a scan.

Yup :-)
 

--
High Priestess of Ribbonology
God Is A Ribbon!
All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Sky
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[showmethehoney]

i dont believe in spirit, i live with it. one can talk about chocolate
ice cream, but until theyve eaten it, they have no idea what it tastes
like. belief indicates a lack of experience or knowledge.

[showmethehoney]

so you dont believe that it is possible for someone to be superior to
another? if you do, why does this indicate that they have a problem?
if someone simply thinks they are superior in an effort to boost their
needy ego, i agree. if not, i disagree. also, if one does feel
superior, it does not mean that they are arrogant, act like an elitist
or power trip over anyone. they could actually use their power to help
and empower others, could they not? is this too catagorized as a
problem by you?

[Ma-choo!]

Had a great time reading the thread - I'm curious if any atheists on
the board have ever encountered a ghost?

On Oct 24, 6:10 am, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

[Simon Ewins]

[Ma-choo!]

> Had a great time reading the thread - I'm curious if any atheists on
> the board have ever encountered a ghost?

Never. I have on a number of occasions placed myself in locations
where ghosts were reported to be rampant. Nada.

Even slept one night, in my late teens, on the grave of a girl named
Rose who was supposed to rise up every night and wander about the
cemetery.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 27, 1:21 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i dont believe in spirit, i live with it. one can talk about chocolate
> ice cream, but until theyve eaten it, they have no idea what it tastes
> like.

With chocolate ice cream you can simply have someone taste it, since
it exists.

> belief indicates a lack of experience or knowledge.

There are all sorts of rational explanations for your claim that
'spirits exist," for which you have presented no valid evidence.
People can lie to themselves and to others about their experience and
knowledge. People can hallucinate if they're on drugs, or have
schizophrenia. People can confuse dreams with reality. People get
delerious when sick.

[chazwin]

Have you heard of the notion co-incidence?
The fact is that such events are exactly the ones that you remember
because they have to "woo-woo" factor.
What you might want to ask yourself is what personal psychology might
have made you a bit nervous going round for a shag that disappeared
when the woman put you at your ease?


On Oct 24, 11:10 am, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 27, 1:26 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> so you dont believe that it is possible for someone to be superior to
> another?

Define "superior." Are you saying that some people are better than
other people? How do you measure that? By skin colour? Gender?
Religious belief?

Some people are good at some things, others at other things. I think
it's a short trip from regarding people as "superior" and "inferior"
to gassing people in ovens.

> if you do, why does this indicate that they have a problem?

If they're not narcissistic, no.

> if someone simply thinks they are superior in an effort to boost their
> needy ego, i agree.

Which is what a narcissist does.

> if not, i disagree.

If someone doesnt think they are superior in an effort to boost their
ego, you disagree? Huh?

> also, if one does feel
> superior, it does not mean that they are arrogant, act like an elitist
> or power trip over anyone.

Not if other people don't give them the opportunity, at least.

> they could actually use their power to help
> and empower others, could they not?

A narcissist in charge of others is often a recipe for those being
"helped" and "empowered" to become victimized by the narcissist.

[showmethehoney]

to repeat ad nauseam, i was never sleeping during my experiences. its
like i keep saying it, and you keep missing it. i also keep saying
that one cannot prove that spirit exists. its nothing physical that
you can produce so that someone else can see, touch or feel it. one
finds it themselves through desire, not through pessimism or even your
beloved rational thinking.

[Eris]

This poor young lady was in the rock collecting store touching the
healing crystals. I lost track of her but heard the ambulance pull up
siren blaring. Poor kid. I watched them carry her out.

Lost another crystal believing friend to stage four breast cancer.
She used to go into the health food store and hold the vitamin bottle
up to her stomach to sense the vibration.

On Oct 24, 7:10 am, Dead Kennedy <potentateoflo...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

[Dead Kennedy]

well as i pointed out earlier, i put it down to the co-incidence of
having a mild dose of the nova virus.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 27, 2:50 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> to repeat ad nauseam, i was never sleeping during my experiences. its
> like i keep saying it, and you keep missing it.

And I keep not believing you about spirits, so I'm suggesting rational
explanations instead.

> i also keep saying
> that one cannot prove that spirit exists.

Which is why I keep not beleiving your claims about spirits, and look
for alternate explanations instead. If something can be perceived with
the senses then it has a physical presence. If it has a physical
presence then it can be measured. Why would anyone withhold the tape
measure?

> its nothing physical that
> you can produce so that someone else can see, touch or feel it.

Then I'm left with thinking that your perception of spirits was
generated by your mind. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I
suggest you were dreaming. Next choice: you're lying, hallucinating
from mental illness or a drug, you've suffered a brain injury, etc.

> one
> finds it themselves through desire, not through pessimism or even your
> beloved rational thinking.

Oh. I forgot "wishful thinking."

Of course I don't believe you about spirits if you don't have valid
evidence. I regard this profound spiritual lesson as more narcissism
on your part. You've attained something super duper special and
there's something wrong with me. I have to give up who I am to be more
like you.

[showmethehoney]

suggest away...your lack of any knowledge about the events certainly
allows you to specualte, despite how misled your conclusions are.

yes you keep going on about hallucinations, drugs, sickness, etc. just
more speculation, inserting your vague opinion into the experience of
others. rather shallow approach imo.

you cannot grasp the concept of spirit. since spirit is not physical,
it would be rather hard to have a video, dont you think? of course you
dont, since your complete rejection of the possibility of the
existance of such will not allow you to even consider what spirit
energy is all about. just some elitist wannabe freak ranting through a
drug induced hallucination...

oh, now i see where you are coming from. you think that because i
claim to have had this super duper experience, and you havent, that i
am saying that there is something wrong with you! lol. so thats why
you charge me with thinking im superior, etc etc. i was simply
relating a neat event in my life and, unlike what you are promoting, i
am not doing it to elicit cult members, or trying to establish that im
elite or special. if anything, i was hoping to hear of similar
incidents. you really are a bit sensitive arent you? i suggest a
double shot of ego booster neil. get over your inferiority complex is
my suggestion.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 28, 3:41 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> suggest away...your lack of any knowledge about the events certainly
> allows you to specualte, despite how misled your conclusions are.
>
> yes you keep going on about hallucinations, drugs, sickness, etc. just
> more speculation, inserting your vague opinion into the experience of
> others. rather shallow approach imo.

My approach is that beliefs should be supported with valid evidence.
Since you aren't offering any evidence, I then have to explain what
motivates you to maintain beliefs without supporting evidence. My
conclusion is that it must be some kind of psychological need. The
only thing remaining is figuring out which need it is. Seems specific
to me. And it seems like sour grapes on your part to call it shallow,
but I can understand why you'd say that. The best defence is a good
offence, after all.

> you cannot grasp the concept of spirit. since spirit is not physical,

I lack belief that something that you can sense is not physical, and
that it is instead the mind that is generating a hallucinatory/
dreamlike experience.

> it would be rather hard to have a video, dont you think?

Not if "spirit" exists. I think it's laughable that I'm supposed to
believe that spirits only appear to those who believe in them. What
are they, mind readers, too? Moral agents, like God? If they exist
then anyone would be able to see/sense them, regardless of their
intellectual state. And if anyone could see/sense them, then we would
have invented a spirit video camera by now.

> of course you
> dont, since your complete rejection of the possibility of the
> existance of such will not allow you to even consider what spirit
> energy is all about.

Wrong. I am considering what "spirit energy" is all about. You just
don't like my conclusions, that's all.

> just some elitist wannabe freak ranting through a
> drug induced hallucination...

I'd phrase it more like "just some narcissistic charlatan wannabe
spirit guide defrauding people out of their pants and money," but
you've got the idea.

> oh, now i see where you are coming from. you think that because i
> claim to have had this super duper experience, and you havent, that i
> am saying that there is something wrong with you! lol.

No. I'd say you're fishing. You want me to become a True Believer and
the first step is to get me to reject myself, and you're trying a
number of techniques. It's classic.

> so thats why
> you charge me with thinking im superior, etc etc. i was simply
> relating a neat event in my life and,

When you tell me that "...one finds it themselves through desire, not
through pessimism or even your beloved rational thinking," you are
telling me that I am inadequate, and that you've attained something I
should want. You are telling me that how I live is wrong. This is not
"simply relating a neat event" in your life; this is you getting me to
be dissatisfied with mine. That's how True Believers are born. You are
travelling a well-worn path. You're just ineffective at it, so you
haven't got very far. You need more charisma to make this thing work,
just some advice.

> unlike what you are promoting, i
> am not doing it to elicit cult members, or trying to establish that im
> elite or special.

You can say that, but I think that's exactly what you are doing, at
least subconsciously. But having talked to you, and read your
conversations with others, I am skeptical that it's all that
subconscious.

> if anything, i was hoping to hear of similar
> incidents. you really are a bit sensitive arent you? i suggest a
> double shot of ego booster neil. get over your inferiority complex is
> my suggestion.

You're not likely to turn me, but keep trying. I'm secure in my
pursuit of "rational thinking" and that the people who I aspire to be
like aren't charlatans.

[showmethehoney]

beliefs cannot include evidence. if something is factual one has
knowledge, therefore making belief obsolete. in case you missed it, i
am not claiming beliefs in anything?

regarding the defence/offence comment...is this why you have now
reverted to name-calling?

you are not 'supposed to believe spirit exists'. nobody is trying to
talk you into it. you do, or you dont. in your case, you dont. end of
story. its not that i dont like your conclusions, i actually expect
them. it doesnt matter to me one way or the other what you believe or
disbelieve in. why should it?

and i certainly dont want you to become a 'true believer'. as
mentioned over and over, belief is not an ingredient in an experience.
sharing an experience also doesnt take belief. you just love to state
your opinion, regardless of facts or how relevant they are to the
point, dont you neil? the chance of you experiencing spirit is likely
zero to nil...take your choice.

ummm i dont want your money, and you can take this to the bank....i
dont want your pants, despite the fact that you are now promoting
yourself as a 'wholesome sex symbol'. ;-)

no my little ego starved debater, i am not stating that you are
inadequate. what does not having desire have to do with inadequacy? it
simply means that you have no ambition to find the spirit that we all
have, but most have buried deep in apathy or the fear of the unknown.

where did i say that the way you live your life is wrong? your ongoing
factual-sounding (but misled) statements about what i have said, what
i infer, what i think, what i have experienced, etc is a true sign
that you are actually the one who thinks you are superior. imagine
someone else telling you what you think! you would likely go
ballistic.

heres a tip....in your 'pursuit of rational thinking' first pull the
chase vehicle out of the garage. then take it out of reverse and put
it in drive. dont forget to put your hands on the steering wheel! ;-)

[Drafterman]

On Oct 28, 10:25 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> beliefs cannot include evidence. if something is factual one has
> knowledge, therefore making belief obsolete. in case you missed it, i
> am not claiming beliefs in anything?

This is basic epistemology. Beliefs and knowledge are not exclusive.
Rather, knowledge is a *type* of belief. Specifically, knowledge is a
justified true belief. If you have a belief, which turns out to be
true, and you are justified in believing it to be true, then it is
also knowledge. But that it is knowledge does not stop it from still
being a belief. You've stated this falsehood at least once before,
perhaps you should learn what you're talking about first?

>
> regarding the defence/offence comment...is this why you have now
> reverted to name-calling?
>
> you are not 'supposed to believe spirit exists'. nobody is trying to
> talk you into it. you do, or you dont. in your case, you dont. end of
> story. its not that i dont like your conclusions, i actually expect
> them. it doesnt matter to me one way or the other what you believe or
> disbelieve in. why should it?

If you are not prepared to back up your claims (spirit exists) then
you should not be spouting them off on a debate group.

>
> and i certainly dont want you to become a 'true believer'. as
> mentioned over and over, belief is not an ingredient in an experience.
> sharing an experience also doesnt take belief. you just love to state
> your opinion, regardless of facts or how relevant they are to the
> point, dont you neil? the chance of you experiencing spirit is likely
> zero to nil...take your choice.

It is amazing that you simultaneously claim that it is impossible to
describe or talk about the spirit in any meaningful way, and also that
you are able to tell who has had a spiritual experience and who hasn't
(or can't).

[Simon Ewins]

[showmethehoney]

> beliefs cannot include evidence. if something is factual one has
> knowledge, therefore making belief obsolete. in case you missed it, i
> am not claiming beliefs in anything?

I would disagree with that. Everything is belief. Beliefs are either
faith or knowledge based but they remain beliefs.

--
"The best thing about religion is that it’s so transparently
absurd it can’t possibly last forever. I’m convinced it will
only take a small shift in human consciousness for it to be
laughed off the planet, and I hope I’m still around when
that happens."
[Pat Condell]

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 28, 6:25 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> beliefs cannot include evidence.

Of course they can. I believe we evolved, and fossils are evidence.

> if something is factual one has
> knowledge, therefore making belief obsolete.

If something is falsifiable, like evolution, then it is accepted as
the best explanation until something comes along and falsifies it.

> in case you missed it, i
> am not claiming beliefs in anything?

I do not accept your claim that spirit is fact, and I categorize it as
your belief. And even at that, I doubt your sincerety.

> regarding the defence/offence comment...is this why you have now
> reverted to name-calling?

How is "the best defence is a good offence" name calling?

> you are not 'supposed to believe spirit exists'. nobody is trying to
> talk you into it.

Except you. And the Christians on this newsgroup. And the people on TV
with those ghost chasing shows. And JoJo the psychic.

There's LOTS of people trying to talk me into it - including you.

> you do, or you dont. in your case, you dont. end of
> story. its not that i dont like your conclusions, i actually expect
> them. it doesnt matter to me one way or the other what you believe or
> disbelieve in. why should it?

Because you're a narcissist, and you want people to admire you.

> and i certainly dont want you to become a 'true believer'.

Your other words say otherwise. You are talking out of both corners of
your mouth.

> as mentioned over and over, belief is not an ingredient in an experience.

You can state that over and over, but I will continue to disagree. You
said it yourself - if you don't want to see spirits, you won't see
them. Seems like a recipe for delusion to me.

> sharing an experience also doesnt take belief. you just love to state
> your opinion, regardless of facts or how relevant they are to the
> point, dont you neil? the chance of you experiencing spirit is likely
> zero to nil...take your choice.

Like I said, seems like a recipe for delusion...

> ummm i dont want your money, and you can take this to the bank....i
> dont want your pants, despite the fact that you are now promoting
> yourself as a 'wholesome sex symbol'. ;-)

Maybe not MINE...

Look, I simply don't believe you. You can TELL me you don't want to
fleece people, and maybe at this point you don't believe you would,
but I've talked to you and read your exchanges with other people, and
the two words I would use to describe you are narcissistic and
insincere. To me, you have the classic makeup of a cult leader, except
you lack charisma.

> no my little ego starved debater, i am not stating that you are
> inadequate. what does not having desire have to do with inadequacy?

Because you say desire is what's required to see spirits, and I lack
that desire, so I'm inadequate, because apparently seeing spirits is
better than my "beloved reason."

> it
> simply means that you have no ambition to find the spirit that we all
> have, but most have buried deep in apathy or the fear of the unknown.

You didn't use the word "ambition" before. And you're still trying to
make me feel inadequate by telling me I'm apathetic and afraid. You
are still trying to make me a True Believer.

And argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that we all have
"spirit."

> where did i say that the way you live your life is wrong?

When you mocked me for preferring reason.

> your ongoing
> factual-sounding (but misled) statements about what i have said,

So quoting you is misleading people about what you said?

> what
> i infer, what i think, what i have experienced, etc is a true sign
> that you are actually the one who thinks you are superior. imagine
> someone else telling you what you think! you would likely go
> ballistic.

Conjecture is not evidence that I would actually go ballistic,
however. Tu quoque fallacies are not evidence that you aren't a
narcissistic charlatan.

> heres a tip....in your 'pursuit of rational thinking' first pull the
> chase vehicle out of the garage. then take it out of reverse and put
> it in drive. dont forget to put your hands on the steering wheel!  ;-)

Non sequitur fallacies are not evidence you aren't a narcissistic
charlatan, either.

[showmethehoney]

although there seems to be some merit in your argument about belief, a
bit of research seems to reveal that there are opinions on both sides.
a quote from wikipedia states that "The terms belief and knowledge are
used differently in philosophy". since we are talking about religious
belief, i think the following may apply

[wikipedia - religious belief]
"Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is placed in
a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine. Such a state
may relate to: 1 the existence, characteristics and worship of a deity
or deities; 2 divine intervention in the universe and human life; or 3
values and practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
In contrast to other belief systems, religious beliefs are usually
codified. While the term "religious belief" is often considered to
have the same meaning as religion, the later term usually deals with
both ideas and practices. Religious belief can be seen as a focus
exclusively on ideas."

the last sentence seems to reflect my interpretation of belief...just
a bunch of ideas, hopes, etc. nothing factual. no knowledge.

i dont know how many times i have to state this "spirit cannot be
proven or even defined with any justifcation". try extended
introspection and see if anything starts to shine is my suggestion.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 28, 7:27 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 28, 6:25 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > beliefs cannot include evidence.
>

> Of course they can. I believe we evolved, and fossils are evidence.

>
> > if something is factual one has
> > knowledge, therefore making belief obsolete.
>

> If something is falsifiable, like evolution, then it is accepted as
> the best explanation until something comes along and falsifies it.
>

> > in case you missed it, i
> > am not claiming beliefs in anything?
>

> I do not accept your claim that spirit is fact, and I categorize it as
> your belief. And even at that, I doubt your sincerety.
>

> > regarding the defence/offence comment...is this why you have now
> > reverted to name-calling?
>

> How is "the best defence is a good offence" name calling?

>
> > you are not 'supposed to believe spirit exists'. nobody is trying to
> > talk you into it.
>

> Except you. And the Christians on this newsgroup. And the people on TV
> with those ghost chasing shows. And JoJo the psychic.
>
> There's LOTS of people trying to talk me into it - including you.
>

> > you do, or you dont. in your case, you dont. end of
> > story. its not that i dont like your conclusions, i actually expect
> > them. it doesnt matter to me one way or the other what you believe or
> > disbelieve in. why should it?
>

> Because you're a narcissist, and you want people to admire you.
>

> > and i certainly dont want you to become a 'true believer'.
>

> Your other words say otherwise. You are talking out of both corners of
> your mouth.
>

> > as mentioned over and over, belief is not an ingredient in an experience.
>

> You can state that over and over, but I will continue to disagree. You
> said it yourself - if you don't want to see spirits, you won't see
> them. Seems like a recipe for delusion to me.
>

> > sharing an experience also doesnt take belief. you just love to state
> > your opinion, regardless of facts or how relevant they are to the
> > point, dont you neil? the chance of you experiencing spirit is likely
> > zero to nil...take your choice.
>

> Like I said, seems like a recipe for delusion...
>

> > ummm i dont want your money, and you can take this to the bank....i
> > dont want your pants, despite the fact that you are now promoting
> > yourself as a 'wholesome sex symbol'. ;-)
>

> Maybe not MINE...
>
> Look, I simply don't believe you. You can TELL me you don't want to
> fleece people, and maybe at this point you don't believe you would,
> but I've talked to you and read your exchanges with other people, and
> the two words I would use to describe you are narcissistic and
> insincere. To me, you have the classic makeup of a cult leader, except
> you lack charisma.
>

> > no my little ego starved debater, i am not stating that you are
> > inadequate. what does not having desire have to do with inadequacy?
>

> Because you say desire is what's required to see spirits, and I lack
> that desire, so I'm inadequate, because apparently seeing spirits is
> better than my "beloved reason."
>

> > it
> > simply means that you have no ambition to find the spirit that we all
> > have, but most have buried deep in apathy or the fear of the unknown.
>

> You didn't use the word "ambition" before. And you're still trying to
> make me feel inadequate by telling me I'm apathetic and afraid. You
> are still trying to make me a True Believer.
>
> And argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that we all have
> "spirit."
>

> > where did i say that the way you live your life is wrong?
>

> When you mocked me for preferring reason.
>

> > your ongoing
> > factual-sounding (but misled) statements about what i have said,
>

> So quoting you is misleading people about what you said?
>

> > what
> > i infer, what i think, what i have experienced, etc is a true sign
> > that you are actually the one who thinks you are superior. imagine
> > someone else telling you what you think! you would likely go
> > ballistic.
>

> Conjecture is not evidence that I would actually go ballistic,
> however. Tu quoque fallacies are not evidence that you aren't a
> narcissistic charlatan.
>

> > heres a tip....in your 'pursuit of rational thinking' first pull the
> > chase vehicle out of the garage. then take it out of reverse and put
> > it in drive. dont forget to put your hands on the steering wheel! ;-)
>

> Non sequitur fallacies are not evidence you aren't a narcissistic

[Drafterman]

On Oct 28, 11:51 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> although there seems to be some merit in your argument about belief, a
> bit of research seems to reveal that there are opinions on both sides.
> a quote from wikipedia states that "The terms belief and knowledge are
> used differently in philosophy". since we are talking about religious
> belief, i think the following may apply

It's not an argument. It's the epistemological definition.
http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/tripartite.html

>
> [wikipedia - religious belief]
> "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is placed in
> a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine. Such a state
> may relate to: 1 the existence, characteristics and worship of a deity
> or deities; 2 divine intervention in the universe and human life; or 3
> values and practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
> In contrast to other belief systems, religious beliefs are usually
> codified. While the term "religious belief" is often considered to
> have the same meaning as religion, the later term usually deals with
> both ideas and practices. Religious belief can be seen as a focus
> exclusively on ideas."
>
> the last sentence seems to reflect my interpretation of belief...just
> a bunch of ideas, hopes, etc. nothing factual. no knowledge.

There is nothing in that last sentence that excludes facts.

>
> i dont know how many times i have to state this "spirit cannot be
> proven or even defined with any justifcation". try extended
> introspection and see if anything starts to shine is my suggestion.

This doesn't address the fact that you're trying to have it both ways.

[showmethehoney]

hmmm....finally a post that is accurate and makes sense ;-)

[showmethehoney]

ideas are facts?

have what both ways?

On Oct 28, 12:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 11:51 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > although there seems to be some merit in your argument about belief, a
> > bit of research seems to reveal that there are opinions on both sides.
> > a quote from wikipedia states that "The terms belief and knowledge are
> > used differently in philosophy". since we are talking about religious
> > belief, i think the following may apply
>

> It's not an argument. It's the epistemological definition.http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/tripartite.html

[Neil Kelsey]

On Oct 28, 8:45 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> hmmm....finally a post that is accurate and makes sense ;-)

Server troubles are not evidence that you saw spirits.

[Drafterman]

On Oct 28, 12:46 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> ideas are facts?

They can be.

>
> have what both ways?

You can't be completely inable to describe, in even the most basic of
understandable terms, what spiritual experiences are yet, at the same
time, be able to conclusively determine who has and hasn't had them
and who can and can't have them.

[Sebastian]

You say we have a spirit and that you experience it. What gets me is
how you know that what you are experiencing is the spirit unless the
experience IS the spirit? The problem is that this carries
implications that are beyond what you experience. It would mean that
we are not just a bunch of atoms. But this conclusion does not seem to
me to be supported by your experience. If you think otherwise, can you
explain how you got to the conclusion?

> ...
>
> read more »

[showmethehoney]

i didnt say they were....i stated that it caused you to produce an
accurate post ;-)

[showmethehoney]

ok i'll bite...how does thinking of something make it a fact? i guess
you mean that if someone thought of a new kitchen gadget that someone
else was just about ready to market, your fantastic idea would be a
fact because someone else had already thought of it and made it? how
this applies to religious belief however is beyond me.

i said that you are not likely to have a spiritual experience because
of our lack of belief of the existance of such. with my experiences, i
had the opportunity to turn them off, not pay any attention to them.
but i didnt. i welcomed them into my life and once i had done that,
many things started to happen. that is what i meant by desire being
the motivating factor to spiritual growth. polish it and it will get
brighter. ignore it and it will stay in the dark.

[showmethehoney]

first of all, do you have any belief in the metaphysical?

[Drafterman]

On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ok i'll bite...how does thinking of something make it a fact?

I didn't say that thinking of something makes it a fact. I said that
ideas can be facts. An idea is simply a thought in your head. If you
happen to think about something that is consequently a fact, then that
idea is a fact.

> i guess
> you mean that if someone thought of a new kitchen gadget that someone
> else was just about ready to market, your fantastic idea would be a
> fact because someone else had already thought of it and made it?

No. I mean that if you have an idea (i.e. thought) in your head that
is factual, then that idea is a fact.

> how
> this applies to religious belief however is beyond me.

It applies based upon the definition you provided. It noted that
religion involves ideas and practices, while religious belief is just
about the ideas. It does not exclude those ideas from being factual.

>
> i said that you are not likely to have a spiritual experience because
> of our lack of belief of the existance of such.

This is what you said about Neil:

"the chance of you experiencing spirit is likely zero to nil...take
your choice."

You cannot simultaneously claim that the spirit is incomprehensible
and completely inexplicible to other peopl and make the above claim.
You can't have it both ways.

[Answer_42]

On Oct 28, 2:20 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> first of all, do you have any belief in the metaphysical?

Define "metaphysical."
__________________________________________
True believers aren't about to be seduced by the facts.
-- Gary Sloan

[showmethehoney]

en.wikipedia.org

[showmethehoney]

like i said...ya gotta want it to get it

[Drafterman]

On Oct 28, 5:36 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> like i said...ya gotta want it to get it

And if I want it, but don't get it?

> ...
>
> read more »