Apology & Rant

[Shyone]

Pardon my naturally suspicious nature, but I even wonder about auto commercials where they are advertising accident repair. I suspect the repair job was photographed "before" the accident happened. The results would "look like new."

And today, with the extreme magical powers of Photoshop, anything can be made to look whatever way we want.

Good point. I could photograph both of my arms and reverse the image of the arm without the tattoo (or with) to suggest that the arm with the tattoo no longer has it. Simple really.

 

I may try that as an experiment.

[Ouroboros]

You can also use smudging, cloning, and other pen-tools to erase something from the skin. (I've done it. Quite simple, really.) I can remove a tattoo from a photo. Easy as a piece of pizza.

 

I saw a documentary where they used Photoshop (or some other software) to "correct" body images for a magazine (one of those gossip magz). They showed how it was done by taking a photo of the reporter, and then they slimmed her down, removed blemishes, fixed hair color, makeup, and many other things in 30 minutes.

[Overcame Faith]

Well, a lie is an intentional attempt at deception. I think most preachers believe the bullshit they are saying.

 

I think the higher the level of education of the preacher, the less likely they are to actually believe the bullshit. A really good seminary teaches everything one needs to know to deconvert.

[Phanta]

It's funny, when I was a Christian, I could never even sit through an alter call. Nothing I did was ever good enough. I was always an evil worthless piece of shit. I could never get that assurance of salvation no matter what I did, and I didn't understand why. Now I know. It has nothing to do with conviction from the Holy Spirit. It's all in the mind. All about how the preacher tries to psychologically mess with your head in all the right ways, that those sensetive and weak minded enough will buy into it. They can't sell you their product until they convince you that you have to have it, right? Now that I know I have OCD, it all makes sense. That's all it ever was. Now that I don't consider myself a Christian, I can sit through an alter call. I can also see through the lies that the preacher is saying. I'm not saying everything they're saying is a lie, but a lot of it is, no doubt.

 

Insightful.

 

Preachers have to sell their product, to keep in business. Many of them report their sales back to "corporate" as well.

 

Phanta

[RankStranger]

 

What I meant was, if YOU (or whoever else is reading this) had that happen to you, you probably wouldn't be thinking it was normal and natural. But I doubt this guy was lying, because he showed before and after pictures.

 

It's funny, when I was a Christian, I could never even sit through an alter call. Nothing I did was ever good enough. I was always an evil worthless piece of shit. I could never get that assurance of salvation no matter what I did, and I didn't understand why. Now I know. It has nothing to do with conviction from the Holy Spirit. It's all in the mind. All about how the preacher tries to psychologically mess with your head in all the right ways, that those sensetive and weak minded enough will buy into it. They can't sell you their product until they convince you that you have to have it, right? Now that I know I have OCD, it all makes sense. That's all it ever was. Now that I don't consider myself a Christian, I can sit through an alter call. I can also see through the lies that the preacher is saying. I'm not saying everything they're saying is a lie, but a lot of it is, no doubt. Hell, half the crap they teach isn't even biblical anyway. Funny how things work.

Forgive me for dwelling on the tattoo, but it does raise some questions:

 

1. How do you know it was a permanent tattoo? Could it have been a temporary tattoo?

2. Can you be sure that the tattoo was on the same person as the after picture? (face?)

3. Can you verify that the after shot was taken after the tattoo picture?

 

Also, can you verify that he actually got the tattoo? I mean, have you gone with him to the tattoo parlor to ask the artist to verify that he did the tattoo on your friend?

 

Pardon my naturally suspicious nature, but I even wonder about auto commercials where they are advertising accident repair. I suspect the repair job was photographed "before" the accident happened. The results would "look like new."

 

I'm going to reveal a little more of my arrogant bastard side... as if that wasn't obvious already:

 

In my daily life, the people that I deal with are ROUTINELY wrong. It's usually some combination of lies, embellishments, honest mistakes, miscommunication, misunderstanding, outright stupidity, prejudice, stubbornness, and probably several other bothersome habits... but the point is that everybody says and does things that are just plain incorrect/wrong/stupid. Hell, I'm a nitpicky, anal sonofabitch with an IQ within one standard deviation of Einstein... and I KNOW I'm wrong several times every day. I assume that I don't know I'm wrong at least as often. It's just part of being human.

 

So when somebody tells me something, or when I read something- I just assume by default that they're at least partially wrong- unless it squares with what I already know and/or I get corroborating information. This approach pisses people off on occasion... but it's served me well.

 

You might keep this in mind when you hear religious claims and stories. People are usually wrong- whether it's intentional or not.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Well, a lie is an intentional attempt at deception. I think most preachers believe the bullshit they are saying.

 

I know they believe what they're saying.

 

Forgive me for dwelling on the tattoo, but it does raise some questions:

 

1. How do you know it was a permanent tattoo? Could it have been a temporary tattoo?

2. Can you be sure that the tattoo was on the same person as the after picture? (face?)

3. Can you verify that the after shot was taken after the tattoo picture?

 

Also, can you verify that he actually got the tattoo? I mean, have you gone with him to the tattoo parlor to ask the artist to verify that he did the tattoo on your friend?

 

Pardon my naturally suspicious nature, but I even wonder about auto commercials where they are advertising accident repair. I suspect the repair job was photographed "before" the accident happened. The results would "look like new."

 

I don't know the person this happened to. It was a guy on YouTube I used to watch some, this happened to his mom. I would link the video, but.... I don't want to be put in a down/bad mood from watching it.

 

I think all of you are right though, why dwell on something that may or may not have happened to another person? Still, all I'm saying is, IF it really happened... well.... yeah.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

 

What I meant was, if YOU (or whoever else is reading this) had that happen to you, you probably wouldn't be thinking it was normal and natural. But I doubt this guy was lying, because he showed before and after pictures.

 

It's funny, when I was a Christian, I could never even sit through an alter call. Nothing I did was ever good enough. I was always an evil worthless piece of shit. I could never get that assurance of salvation no matter what I did, and I didn't understand why. Now I know. It has nothing to do with conviction from the Holy Spirit. It's all in the mind. All about how the preacher tries to psychologically mess with your head in all the right ways, that those sensetive and weak minded enough will buy into it. They can't sell you their product until they convince you that you have to have it, right? Now that I know I have OCD, it all makes sense. That's all it ever was. Now that I don't consider myself a Christian, I can sit through an alter call. I can also see through the lies that the preacher is saying. I'm not saying everything they're saying is a lie, but a lot of it is, no doubt. Hell, half the crap they teach isn't even biblical anyway. Funny how things work.

Forgive me for dwelling on the tattoo, but it does raise some questions:

 

1. How do you know it was a permanent tattoo? Could it have been a temporary tattoo?

2. Can you be sure that the tattoo was on the same person as the after picture? (face?)

3. Can you verify that the after shot was taken after the tattoo picture?

 

Also, can you verify that he actually got the tattoo? I mean, have you gone with him to the tattoo parlor to ask the artist to verify that he did the tattoo on your friend?

 

Pardon my naturally suspicious nature, but I even wonder about auto commercials where they are advertising accident repair. I suspect the repair job was photographed "before" the accident happened. The results would "look like new."

 

I'm going to reveal a little more of my arrogant bastard side... as if that wasn't obvious already:

 

In my daily life, the people that I deal with are ROUTINELY wrong. It's usually some combination of lies, embellishments, honest mistakes, miscommunication, misunderstanding, outright stupidity, prejudice, stubbornness, and probably several other bothersome habits... but the point is that everybody says and does things that are just plain incorrect/wrong/stupid. Hell, I'm a nitpicky, anal sonofabitch with an IQ within one standard deviation of Einstein... and I KNOW I'm wrong several times every day. I assume that I don't know I'm wrong at least as often. It's just part of being human.

 

So when somebody tells me something, or when I read something- I just assume by default that they're at least partially wrong- unless it squares with what I already know and/or I get corroborating information. This approach pisses people off on occasion... but it's served me well.

 

You might keep this in mind when you hear religious claims and stories. People are usually wrong- whether it's intentional or not.

 

It's better to automatically assume a person wrong than to automatically assume that they're right.

[Ouroboros]

It's better to automatically assume a person wrong than to automatically assume that they're right.

No. It's better to assume that you don't know if the person is right or wrong. Then you try to build an image of the person's character, coherence of the story, and so on, until you can make some judgment if you think it might be true or not. But during that process, you need to consider alternative explanations because it's easy to just pick the answer that fits us best (what we believe, our framework, or schema as it's called in some professions).

 

For instance, when you see a magician making a lion appear from nowhere on stage, is it true magic, or is it a trick? Just because we can't figure out the trick, does it automatically mean that it must be magic? We know it's a trick, we just don't know how. Sometimes that is true for people around us too. And it goes for nature too. Some things in nature can be hard to explain, but it doesn't mean they're supernatural. And so on...

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

It's better to automatically assume a person wrong than to automatically assume that they're right.

No. It's better to assume that you don't know if the person is right or wrong. Then you try to build an image of the person's character, coherence of the story, and so on, until you can make some judgment if you think it might be true or not. But during that process, you need to consider alternative explanations because it's easy to just pick the answer that fits us best (what we believe, our framework, or schema as it's called in some professions).

 

For instance, when you see a magician making a lion appear from nowhere on stage, is it true magic, or is it a trick? Just because we can't figure out the trick, does it automatically mean that it must be magic? We know it's a trick, we just don't know how. Sometimes that is true for people around us too. And it goes for nature too. Some things in nature can be hard to explain, but it doesn't mean they're supernatural. And so on...

 

All I'm saying is, it's better to be a natural skeptic of something than to be gullible and assume everything you're told is right.

[dB-Paradox]

All I'm saying is, it's better to be a natural skeptic of something than to be gullible and assume everything you're told is right.

This I can agree with. Better a skeptic than gullible.

 

By the way, how is it that you start a thread that generates a minimum of 100 posts, EASY! Damn, that's been your plan all along, hasn't it! LOL!

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

All I'm saying is, it's better to be a natural skeptic of something than to be gullible and assume everything you're told is right.

This I can agree with. Better a skeptic than gullible.

 

By the way, how is it that you start a thread that generates a minimum of 100 posts, EASY! Damn, that's been your plan all along, hasn't it! LOL!

 

Because I'm stubborn.

[Shyone]

All I'm saying is, it's better to be a natural skeptic of something than to be gullible and assume everything you're told is right.

This I can agree with. Better a skeptic than gullible.

 

By the way, how is it that you start a thread that generates a minimum of 100 posts, EASY! Damn, that's been your plan all along, hasn't it! LOL!

 

Because I'm stubborn.

Well, stubborn perhaps, but something more. Intriguing, perhaps. And I think that many of us see ourselves in your plight, and we reach out to you to try and save ourselves.

 

Incidentally, skeptical approach is always wise. The old "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is countered by the Trojan Horse.

[Ouroboros]

All I'm saying is, it's better to be a natural skeptic of something than to be gullible and assume everything you're told is right.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that there is a middle between denying everything and accepting everything. Skepticism means that you don't accept something as true at face value, but it doesn't mean that you deny it to be true immediately either. My response was based on the way you phrased yourself.

[Galien]

Interesting. I ALWAYS assume people are telling me the truth, because I always tell the truth. I don't know what it is like to be naturally deceptive so I don't assume others are. Make sense?

[Shyone]

Interesting. I ALWAYS assume people are telling me the truth, because I always tell the truth. I don't know what it is like to be naturally deceptive so I don't assume others are. Make sense?

I suppose some of it depends on context. Did you send money to the princess in Nigeria?

 

I'm sure you aren't describing gullibility or credulousness, but I think you are probably assessing the truthfullness of the people you meet on the fly. Eyes, Bearing, body language, clothing, reputation (generally and personally), and does what they say make sense.

 

Many Christians are duped because they assume that all Christians are telling the truth, and they seek out people who are honest and trusting and always tell the truth.

 

Have you seen the movie "The Invention of Lying"?

 

Maybe you have never been hurt by someone you love who fabricated a need for money. Maybe you have never felt like a fool because you gave money to a charity that doesn't exist. Maybe you never will.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Well, stubborn perhaps, but something more. Intriguing, perhaps. And I think that many of us see ourselves in your plight, and we reach out to you to try and save ourselves.

 

Incidentally, skeptical approach is always wise. The old "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is countered by the Trojan Horse.

 

 

Yes, but what I'm saying is that there is a middle between denying everything and accepting everything. Skepticism means that you don't accept something as true at face value, but it doesn't mean that you deny it to be true immediately either. My response was based on the way you phrased yourself.

 

I know. I just mean, between those two choices alone (skepticism and gullibility), skepticism is always the better and healthier choice.

 

 

Interesting. I ALWAYS assume people are telling me the truth, because I always tell the truth. I don't know what it is like to be naturally deceptive so I don't assume others are. Make sense?

 

Depends. When it comes to religion and science, the really big questions, and even the smaller ones that tie in with the big questions, I don't think it's ever good to blindly assume that something is true just because someone said so.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that there is a middle between denying everything and accepting everything. Skepticism means that you don't accept something as true at face value, but it doesn't mean that you deny it to be true immediately either. My response was based on the way you phrased yourself.

 

I know. I just mean, between those two choices alone (skepticism and gullibility), skepticism is always the better and healthier choice.

Agree.

 

As human beings, we're way too easy to be fooled as it is already.

 

Checkout this video: http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Agree.

 

As human beings, we're way too easy to be fooled as it is already.

 

Checkout this video: http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

 

What exactly is that video trying to get across? I miscounted the number of times they threw the ball (although I was close), but I did see the gorilla.

[Ouroboros]

Agree.

 

As human beings, we're way too easy to be fooled as it is already.

 

Checkout this video: http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

 

What exactly is that video trying to get across? I miscounted the number of times they threw the ball (although I was close), but I did see the gorilla.

Most people are so focused on counting that they don't see the gorilla. Actually a large majority does this the first time.

 

Now, after done it wrong one time, I tend to see the gorilla every time and can still count correctly. I've seen other videos of the same kind, and I can see what goes on now.

 

I guess you're part of a minority of people who are very perceptive of things without being to focused or concentrated on one thing.

 

The idea was to show how easy it is for us humans to miss things and how our perception of events can be wrong. Basically, it was my way (it failed obviously ) of showing how faulty we are as humans. Don't trust people's stories, and perhaps not even your own recollection of things.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Agree.

 

As human beings, we're way too easy to be fooled as it is already.

 

Checkout this video: http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

 

What exactly is that video trying to get across? I miscounted the number of times they threw the ball (although I was close), but I did see the gorilla.

Most people are so focused on counting that they don't see the gorilla. Actually a large majority does this the first time.

 

Now, after done it wrong one time, I tend to see the gorilla every time and can still count correctly. I've seen other videos of the same kind, and I can see what goes on now.

 

I guess you're part of a minority of people who are very perceptive of things without being to focused or concentrated on one thing.

 

The idea was to show how easy it is for us humans to miss things and how our perception of events can be wrong. Basically, it was my way (it failed obviously ) of showing how faulty we are as humans. Don't trust people's stories, and perhaps not even your own recollection of things.

 

Interesting stuff.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Is there any cure for being brainwashed with things dealing with the illuminati, the occult, etc.? Or am gonna have to wear a tinfoil hat forever?

[Shyone]

Is there any cure for being brainwashed with things dealing with the illuminati, the occult, etc.? Or am gonna have to wear a tinfoil hat forever?

Realizing that you have been brainwashed seems like the key to not being brainwashed.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Is there any cure for being brainwashed with things dealing with the illuminati, the occult, etc.? Or am gonna have to wear a tinfoil hat forever?

Realizing that you have been brainwashed seems like the key to not being brainwashed.

 

It's a step, but it's not a solution.

 

I can't debunk what I've learned, because it unfortunately makes too much sense. To me, anyway. Besides, who said that just because you're brainwashed with something, that automatically means that what you're brainwashed with is not true? Maybe it is. Maybe this really is just a fucked up reality.

[Shyone]

Is there any cure for being brainwashed with things dealing with the illuminati, the occult, etc.? Or am gonna have to wear a tinfoil hat forever?

Realizing that you have been brainwashed seems like the key to not being brainwashed.

 

It's a step, but it's not a solution.

 

I can't debunk what I've learned, because it unfortunately makes too much sense. To me, anyway. Besides, who said that just because you're brainwashed with something, that automatically means that what you're brainwashed with is not true? Maybe it is. Maybe this really is just a fucked up reality.

That's a very good point! Most of us here suffered from the same problems for many years not even realizing we had a problem (or that we were brainwashed). Many religious people still hang on to what they have been taught from childhood as the truth. It is the truth as far as they are concerned.

 

But here we are, having examined the religion of our parents or upbringing, and we rejected those beliefs as totally false. Reasons vary, but in most cases it was necessary to put on our skeptical glasses, investigate the claims without shying from what we might find, and then accepting the results.

 

Beliefs are different though, and I'd say that for most people here it was the revelation that some particularly strongly held belief was just totally wrong. For example, if you believed the bible was inerrant, and found errors, that would shake your world. If you believed that prophecy in the bible was perfect, but saw unfulfilled and faked prophecies, you would doubt the whole scheme. If you believed that all faith healers were honest people with a gift from God, and then read a report of their actual successes (and failures), and a logical explanation behind both, you would at least question whether faith healing was a real phenomenon.

 

In fact, just how the world works affects some people who think that Christians are protected from harm and disease. Sheesh. How much does it take to show that Christians suffer and die like everyone else?

 

Anyway, you may not even know what might be the trigger for a rejection of a particular belief. If fear is the driving force though, you might not be willing to question your beliefs. It's a vicious cycle in that case.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

That's a very good point! Most of us here suffered from the same problems for many years not even realizing we had a problem (or that we were brainwashed). Many religious people still hang on to what they have been taught from childhood as the truth. It is the truth as far as they are concerned.

 

But here we are, having examined the religion of our parents or upbringing, and we rejected those beliefs as totally false. Reasons vary, but in most cases it was necessary to put on our skeptical glasses, investigate the claims without shying from what we might find, and then accepting the results.

 

Beliefs are different though, and I'd say that for most people here it was the revelation that some particularly strongly held belief was just totally wrong. For example, if you believed the bible was inerrant, and found errors, that would shake your world. If you believed that prophecy in the bible was perfect, but saw unfulfilled and faked prophecies, you would doubt the whole scheme. If you believed that all faith healers were honest people with a gift from God, and then read a report of their actual successes (and failures), and a logical explanation behind both, you would at least question whether faith healing was a real phenomenon.

 

In fact, just how the world works affects some people who think that Christians are protected from harm and disease. Sheesh. How much does it take to show that Christians suffer and die like everyone else?

 

Anyway, you may not even know what might be the trigger for a rejection of a particular belief. If fear is the driving force though, you might not be willing to question your beliefs. It's a vicious cycle in that case.

 

My perspective towards all of it is confusing right now. I really don't know what's true and what's not. I can obviously see the huge holes, problems, contradictions, and everything wrong with the religion. If it's true, a lot of things don't add up at all. The New Testament and Old Testament don't go together at all, and I don't think they were ever meant to. Yet, here we have them both put together in one book that claims to be the word of God. Put together by greedy power hungry men, who thought they had the authority to decide what did and did not belong, what was and was not the word of God. Who knows what they left out, and for what reasons? Hell, maybe they added to the original texts that WERE supposed to be in there, and made them say something totally different than what they were supposed to say. Who really knows? The Bible very well could be inspired by God, but I'm pretty sure that it's NOT the literal perfect word of God that's inspired word for word. Especially not the 1611 KJV as the one and only true word of God. I used to buy into that crap, but now I can see how stupid that is. I've heard of KJV-onlyists saying that God actually inspired the errors in the translation. What a bunch of idiots. I don't know, I see the many problems in the religion as I've stated in many of my posts, but there are other things in my mind that indicate that it's true. How is that possible? How could it be true, yet have so many problems? I don't understand, and I don't know if I ever will.