What If Tarot Is Real?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

OdinaryClay, have you ever asked yourself why god, angels and demons are invisible, does that not set alam bells off for you.

Yes, I have asked myself this. I then quickly asked myself how visible should they be? What do people really mean when they say visible? What most are really asking is, Why doesn't God perform tricks for me.

 

After many years, I came to the conclusion that, one, God is not as hidden as people claim He is, and two, the natural world is part of a greater reality, and that saying God is hidden is akin to a fish saying trees are hidden.

Then ill ask this question, why does god, angels and demons remain invisible when they don't have to?

Why do you hide premises in your questions?

There has to be a reason for the heavenly hosts to remain hidden, silent and up to you to make a interpretation of them for us. Why do they need you or any other christian for that matter. Wouldnt it be much better for me and the rest of us if god spoke to us first hand instead of using a middle man like yourself who is bound to fuck understanding god up for the rest of us.

 

You inject many arbitrary assumptions.

 

Who said God needs us? I see no reason whatsoever to assume God needs anything form any of us - including preachers. God has no needs. All we do for God is for our benefit. Not His.

 

You assume because you don't believe He is "hidden". Again, as I've said before what many people mean by hidden is that God does not perform tricks on demand. He may not blind me while walking down  the road, but He is not hidden to me and millions of others.

 

God's word is crystal clear. We screw it up because of who and what we are not because He lacks clarity.

 

So please tell me. How should God have revealed himself to neolithic tribes men?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if tarot is real? What if the hideous abominations of the left hand path are real? What if kali is real?

 

I see many on here dance around other spiritual followings. It's uncool among skeptics to actually openly embrace the possibility that this stuff is stone cold ******* real. I believe there are some on here that know just how real the spiritual world is and mute their words.

 

Well I ask you, what if it's real? Do you really believe the thin veil called death is simply eternal unconsciousness.

If it was real there would be an enourmous body of evidence that it was real. 

Why do you assume this? We are talking about the supernatural not the natural. You are projecting empirical thinking which is not valid.

 

Actually, if we assume the entities in control of the occult are malicious adversaries then it would follow they would use subterfuge.

 

If it had any influence on the natural world it would be measurable and thus there would be evidence of it's influence.  If it was real but had no influence, how is that distinguishable from non-existant?

 

It is measurable, it is not repeatable therefore you cannot on demand just create a measurement. You must rely on personal experience or testimony. And now someone will jump in with yet another vacuous diatribe about how personal experience and testimony are not evidence. Which is simply a goofy position since they will expect all of us to believe such non-sense based on their testimony

 

Bullshit!  You cannot, on demand, create an anecdote that equals evidence.  Anecdote is no different than opinion.  If you allow that as evidence, then my anecdote of "tarot is bullshit" is just as addmissable and nullifies anything you bring.  You will only accept anecdotes that support your position and dismiss the rest.  This is why they they aren't evidence, opinion is not fact.

 

Did I call it or what!

 

Nothing you said can be backed up scientifically so your own post is anecdotal. It is stunning how myopic and short sighted this form of science worship is. Science is powerful and a valuable tool, but it does not provide all the evidence we need to live by.

 

 

Cuts both ways, Clay!

 

The non-scientific evidence you think you need to live by is based upon what then... anecdote, maybe? 

 

So how do you filter out false testimony from true testimony? How do filter out personal bias?  How do you ensure that what you CHOOSE to believe is true is any more real than another person's choices?

 

Please tell us why your anecdote-based, subjective choices have lead you to what is true, when other people's have not?

 

BAA

 

Fact , no one including you bases their lives on all empirical evidence. Anyone who tells you this is either lying or an internet parrot.

 

So how do you determine what is true?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

Yes, draw your own conclusions. There is no other way through life. We all start and finish with nothing but our ability to make our own choices.

 

 

I see. 

So there's no objective standard to which Clay can be held. 

His subjective choices are right and true and nothing and nobody can gainsay him.

 

Well, there's not much point in dialog with him is there?

 

It looks to me that Clay's only reason for being here is to bludgeon us with his unchallengeable subjective choices.

 

There's not much room for debate or discussion with someone who isn't open to the possibility of changing their choices.  That is right, isn't it Clay?  You aren't ever going to change what you believe, are you?  So the flow is strictly one way.  You're not here to be challenged or to listen or to change one iota, right?

 

You're just here to tell us how it is.

 

Riiight!

 

BAA.

 

I've already stated multiple times, but you choose to ignore it so you can build false accusational verbal meanders. I do follow and study science. Scientific evidence forms a portion of my evidence based approach to belief. Science does in fact support a plausible and reasoned belief in the existence of a Creator, for example. Your empty drawn out posts attempting to nullify a creation point are just wishful missives on your part.

 

I also incorporate vetted testimony as well. Everyone does, and any honest person will admit such is the case.

 

And yes I also have simple faith. There are parts of my belief system that are based simply on my faith in God.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

I guess one could deny the distinction between natural and supernatural.

One can deny anything. LOL

 

 

That cuts both ways too.

 

Obviously. The difference is that I admit such is the case. That is why I have faced all my Christian doubts. The resounding conclusion for me is that God lives and is real.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

 

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

 

It always comes around to what "we think" or how "we would do things". He is the Creator of the universe He is the Great I am. Human arrogance is limitless.

 

So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" (Joh 6:67)

 

 

 

Does your god want a whole bunch of people to go to Hell? If he didn't, he would give everyone the proof they needed to believe what he wanted them to, always the specific amount of proof that will convince every person. People that require first-hand experience as proof would have it. People that required empirical evidence would have it as well. If your god does not prove to every human at the same time in a way that every human can be 100% certain that your god exists, then clearly he doesn't want us to know he is real. Clearly, if the people who do not believe get to go to Hell, he very much wants a lot of people there. 

 

First this board is clear and convincing evidence that even if God appeared personally before every human many, many, many would still reject Him. The posters on this board have said so in their own words many times.

 

Second, simply believing He exists is clearly not what God desires. Demons believe and tremble. He wants willful submission and love. So your claims about what would happen should He do as you desire are your personal speculations. Perhaps God knows better. He knows our hearts far better than we do.

 

[ContraBardus]

The word supernatural is not yours to redefine. It means beyond the natural, and outside the physical laws of nature. Undiscovered natural phenomenon are not supernatural. They are simply undiscovered. Lightening was not supernatural in 10,000 BC just because humans did not understand it and attributed it to deities.

 

Furthermore, you are simply defining away the supernatural by arbitrarily and with no basis whatsoever saying anything supernatural is actually a natural event we don't understand. That is based on pure faith.

 

 

 

Except I'm not defining it or redefining it. You are an idiot and a liar. You are intellectually dishonest and it's incredibly obvious that you know better. This isn't a simple case of you having poor reading comprehension. You're just a troll and you're intentionally misrepresenting the statements of others.

 

You have no actual understanding of what a 'faith' claim is. I'm basing my claim of of well defined and well established definitions, which makes them the exact opposite of being 'faith based claims'.

 

I seriously doubt you actually believe what you're arguing. You're too inconsistent about it. I don't think you're an Atheist either, but you're not honest about your own faith and simply look to contradict and troll. You're more interested in irritating people here than making a point or 'showing your faith'. Something a person who was truly a follower of Jesus would not do. You willfully disobey the very book and basis for the faith you claim to have repeatedly with your postings here. You're just a false representative of your own faith, you seek to insight and inflame, not to explain and convert, a shame there are so many others like you.

 

You are the one trying to define what 'natural' and 'nature' are, when I am going by the actual literal and well established definitions. What is outside of it exactly? Define what outside of nature is. You can't because you don't know what you're talking about and are merely contradicting rather than actually making a valid argument. You can't even explain what 'the laws of nature' are, much less what is outside of them. There is no such thing as 'outside of nature' even death, magic, God(s), and spirits are a part of nature if they exist. They are no more unnatural than Unicorns assuming Unicorns actually exist.

 

Supernatural and unnatural mean outside of or beyond nature. They are nonsensical terms, because there really is no such thing as 'outside of nature'. How is another dimension/plane of existence 'outside of nature'? Explain why. How is 'God' outside of nature? Explain in detail why he is. Just saying 'he's above it or beyond understanding' is not acceptable because it does not explain anything. Even if he is the all powerful creator of everything, he's still a part of Nature and by definition natural. Even if he controls all aspects of it and defines what it is, such a being would influence it directly and by extension be a part of nature itself. Just because something exists outside of our own Universe or plane of existence does not mean that it is unnatural. How is 'spiritual power' different than any other force or energy? Because we can't currently detect it? There were a lot of different energies and forces we couldn't detect, but they were not 'unnatural' because we didn't know how to detect them. Once they were discovered, our understanding of what Physical Law and Nature were was adjusted to fit the new evidence. That's sort of how it has always worked. Even if it's not possible for us to ever detect something, that doesn't make that something unnatural or supernatural.

 

Your lightning example is incredibly dense of you to post, because by bringing it up you are shooting yourself in the foot and supporting my point more than your own.

 

I am not 'redefining' any of these terms at all. Supernatural is just a poor misnomer for unexplained and undefined/undefinable phenomenon. Unnatural has some grounding despite the term being a bit contradictary as it refers to things that are created by humans, but even those things still exist within Nature so the word itself 'unnatural' is a misnomer. The words 'manufactured' or 'crafted' would be better word to use to describe such things.

 

It doesn't matter if these phenomenon you are trying to suggest are 'supernatural' exist or not. It is not a good word and the definition is simply referring to an abstract that can't really exist. The only way something could be 'supernatural' if it didn't actually exist, because if it did exist, then it would by definition of the words 'exist' and 'nature' be a part of physical law and nature. The fact that we cannot define, detect, or otherwise study it for whatever reason, whether it will ever be possible or not, does not change that. It doesn't matter if our current understanding of nature or physical law includes them or not.

 

Things do not 'exist outside of physical law'. If something exists and it doesn't fit with what we know of physical law, then our understanding of physical law is flawed. It means that we are wrong, not that whatever that something is transcends existence in a place 'outside' of it. If such a thing is discovered, then our understanding of physical law must be adjusted to accommodate for it. It means we have to correct out error, not that this 'thing' is outside of existence.

 

You're full of shit, I'm sure you know that you're full of shit, you're just a Troll and your behavior doesn't fit with the Christian values you claim to have. Not in a way that is simply you being 'flawed', but rather an intentional and vindictive willful attempt at disregarding and contradicting what you claim to be.

 

It's entertaining on some level, so don't go thinking I'm rage posting this. I'm sarcastic by nature, and I sometimes do a bit of trolling myself. I've just got plenty of time to waste today, and I'm calling you out on it. You know what you are and you are trying to hide it. It's obvious that you are an example of Poe's Law in practice. I'm unashamed, not contradicting a system of values I claim to have, and will easily admit that I'm trolling when I do it. I'm not being hypocritical because I make no claims of faith or belief that I'm contradicting by doing such things. Even though I do sometimes Troll, I am an honest troll who isn't disregarding any system of belief or moral code when I do it. I think you're kind of pathetic and extremely hypocritical and you certainly aren't looking to convert anyone here to your beliefs. You're making Christianity look bad, and I'm sure you're doing it on purpose. I'm pretty sure the God you claim to believe in will be less forgiving of that than he will be of our not believing in him. After all, we're not slandering him and driving his 'children' away from his faith by intentionally being a butthole and inflaming those who don't believe in order to intentionally harden their hearts against Christianity like you are.

 

Put simply, the way you behave here makes you a literal 'false prophet'. One of the few offenses even Jesus has difficulty forgiving.

 

But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

It would have been better for these false teachers never to have escaped the world in the first place, than to follow in the path of the knowledge of . . . Christ only to abandon that path and return to a life of sin and darkness.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit.. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.

 

 

If he's real, and the beliefs you claim to have are correct, you're going to burn for eternity for what you're doing here. I find it amusingly ironic that I've got a better shot of getting into heaven than you do if the God you claim to worship does happen to be real.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Or perhaps people will jump through absurd hoops to avoid believing in the supernatural because deep down it scares the shit out of them.

 

 

 

Most likely, we haven't seen any evidence of the "supernatural" even after diligently looking for it. I would say that most people would actually welcome the existence of a magical realm and eternal life of a soul if only there was something besides conflicting assertions of what the "spirit realm" actually entails. Everybody's guessing but nobody's providing evidence to back up their wild assertions.

 

Really, it's that simple. We (for the most part) want to believe as much as you do, but we can't just decide to believe something without any indication that it might actually be true. We will not manufacture evidence nor will we accept feelings and emotions and anecdotes as useful indicators of truth.

 

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

I agree there are some that want to believe. There are most certainly others that don't want the supernatural to exist. Most people honestly have never faced the thought of an undeniably true afterlife. Most people give it lip service. Even Christians. Few really tackle the thought of it being genuinely true.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if tarot is real? What if the hideous abominations of the left hand path are real? What if kali is real?

 

I see many on here dance around other spiritual followings. It's uncool among skeptics to actually openly embrace the possibility that this stuff is stone cold ******* real. I believe there are some on here that know just how real the spiritual world is and mute their words.

 

Well I ask you, what if it's real? Do you really believe the thin veil called death is simply eternal unconsciousness.

If it was real there would be an enourmous body of evidence that it was real. 

Why do you assume this? We are talking about the supernatural not the natural. You are projecting empirical thinking which is not valid.

 

Actually, if we assume the entities in control of the occult are malicious adversaries then it would follow they would use subterfuge.

 

If it had any influence on the natural world it would be measurable and thus there would be evidence of it's influence.  If it was real but had no influence, how is that distinguishable from non-existant?

 

It is measurable, it is not repeatable therefore you cannot on demand just create a measurement. You must rely on personal experience or testimony. And now someone will jump in with yet another vacuous diatribe about how personal experience and testimony are not evidence. Which is simply a goofy position since they will expect all of us to believe such non-sense based on their testimony

 

Bullshit!  You cannot, on demand, create an anecdote that equals evidence.  Anecdote is no different than opinion.  If you allow that as evidence, then my anecdote of "tarot is bullshit" is just as addmissable and nullifies anything you bring.  You will only accept anecdotes that support your position and dismiss the rest.  This is why they they aren't evidence, opinion is not fact.

 

Did I call it or what!

 

Nothing you said can be backed up scientifically so your own post is anecdotal. It is stunning how myopic and short sighted this form of science worship is. Science is powerful and a valuable tool, but it does not provide all the evidence we need to live by.

 

 

Cuts both ways, Clay!

 

The non-scientific evidence you think you need to live by is based upon what then... anecdote, maybe? 

 

So how do you filter out false testimony from true testimony? How do filter out personal bias?  How do you ensure that what you CHOOSE to believe is true is any more real than another person's choices?

 

Please tell us why your anecdote-based, subjective choices have lead you to what is true, when other people's have not?

 

BAA

 

Fact , no one including you bases their lives on all empirical evidence. Anyone who tells you this is either lying or an internet parrot.

 

So how do you determine what is true?

 

 

The same faulty, subjective, hit-and-miss process that I would imagine you use.  If I imagine wrongly, then please correct me.  After all I've admitted to being genuinely puzzled about certain aspects of your behavior and this is another area of puzzlement on my part.  I've also stated that I'm serious about this, so I'll re-state and confirm that.

 

 

How do you determine what is true?  What is your starting point?  How do you compensate for our all-too-obvious human biases?  

 

BAA

[Dhampir]

 

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

I agree there are some that want to believe. There are most certainly others that don't want the supernatural to exist. Most people honestly have never faced the thought of an undeniably true afterlife. Most people give it lip service. Even Christians. Few really tackle the thought of it being genuinely true.

 

 

 

No.  What most people never face is the thought of undeniably true oblivion.  The idea that for 13.8 billion years you did not know you did not exist, and that for another 13.8 googol years after your body has ceased to function, you won't know you ever did exist. That it's possible that you could ever not be is so terrifying, that all of humanity has contrived not to have to so much as consider it.

[OrdinaryClay]

You are the one trying to define what 'natural' and 'nature' are, when I am going by the actual literal and well established definitions. What is outside of it exactly? Define what outside of nature is.

 

Nature and natural are all of physics. Using an act of faith you believe the physics available to us through science is the only mechanism of causation we can detect through our senses. A supernatural event is by definition an event that has a causal mechanism outside our physics. It may be that there are no such events and therefore there are no supernatural events that  can actually occur. This does not allow you to redefine the word supernatural.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

I agree there are some that want to believe. There are most certainly others that don't want the supernatural to exist. Most people honestly have never faced the thought of an undeniably true afterlife. Most people give it lip service. Even Christians. Few really tackle the thought of it being genuinely true.

 

 

 

No.  What most people never face is the thought of undeniably true oblivion.  The idea that for 13.8 billion years you did not know you did not exist, and that for another 13.8 googol years after your body has ceased to function, you won't know you ever did exist. That it's possible that you could ever not be is so terrifying, that all of humanity has contrived not to have to so much as consider it.

 

That is silly. Obviously billions of people live their lives just fine knowing they did not exist before being born.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if tarot is real? What if the hideous abominations of the left hand path are real? What if kali is real?

 

I see many on here dance around other spiritual followings. It's uncool among skeptics to actually openly embrace the possibility that this stuff is stone cold ******* real. I believe there are some on here that know just how real the spiritual world is and mute their words.

 

Well I ask you, what if it's real? Do you really believe the thin veil called death is simply eternal unconsciousness.

If it was real there would be an enourmous body of evidence that it was real. 

Why do you assume this? We are talking about the supernatural not the natural. You are projecting empirical thinking which is not valid.

 

Actually, if we assume the entities in control of the occult are malicious adversaries then it would follow they would use subterfuge.

 

If it had any influence on the natural world it would be measurable and thus there would be evidence of it's influence.  If it was real but had no influence, how is that distinguishable from non-existant?

 

It is measurable, it is not repeatable therefore you cannot on demand just create a measurement. You must rely on personal experience or testimony. And now someone will jump in with yet another vacuous diatribe about how personal experience and testimony are not evidence. Which is simply a goofy position since they will expect all of us to believe such non-sense based on their testimony

 

Bullshit!  You cannot, on demand, create an anecdote that equals evidence.  Anecdote is no different than opinion.  If you allow that as evidence, then my anecdote of "tarot is bullshit" is just as addmissable and nullifies anything you bring.  You will only accept anecdotes that support your position and dismiss the rest.  This is why they they aren't evidence, opinion is not fact.

 

Did I call it or what!

 

Nothing you said can be backed up scientifically so your own post is anecdotal. It is stunning how myopic and short sighted this form of science worship is. Science is powerful and a valuable tool, but it does not provide all the evidence we need to live by.

 

 

Cuts both ways, Clay!

 

The non-scientific evidence you think you need to live by is based upon what then... anecdote, maybe? 

 

So how do you filter out false testimony from true testimony? How do filter out personal bias?  How do you ensure that what you CHOOSE to believe is true is any more real than another person's choices?

 

Please tell us why your anecdote-based, subjective choices have lead you to what is true, when other people's have not?

 

BAA

 

Fact , no one including you bases their lives on all empirical evidence. Anyone who tells you this is either lying or an internet parrot.

 

So how do you determine what is true?

 

 

The same faulty, subjective, hit-and-miss process that I would imagine you use.  If I imagine wrongly, then please correct me.  After all I've admitted to being genuinely puzzled about certain aspects of your behavior and this is another area of puzzlement on my part.  I've also stated that I'm serious about this, so I'll re-state and confirm that.

 

 

How do you determine what is true?  What is your starting point?  How do you compensate for our all-too-obvious human biases?  

 

BAA

 

I build a belief structure through reason and evidence. This leaves gaps, but does provide a sound infrastructure. I either live with the gaps as inconsequential because of my belief structure or I pursue them further. I may never come to a good conclusion.

 

The net result for me is:

1) I believe in and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

2) I have areas I don't understand and that is fine.

[ContraBardus]

Nature and natural are all of physics. Using an act of faith you believe the physics available to us through science is the only mechanism of causation we can detect through our senses. A supernatural event is by definition an event that has a causal mechanism outside our physics. It may be that there are no such events and therefore there are no supernatural events that  can actually occur. This does not allow you to redefine the word supernatural.

 

 

 

Way to cherry pick a single sentence out of a multi-paragraph post to intentionally take it completely out of context and still manage to have such an epic failure. Your point still fails and it's obvious to anyone who sees your reply that it is simply a case of you being intellectually dishonest, so it was rather boneheaded and pointless.

 

I -never redefined the words supernatural or unnatural-. Not once in any of my posts did I do or attempt to do any such thing. I said that the words are misnomers, nonsensical, that they cannot represent any actual phenomenon, and that I disliked using them because of that. That is in no way, shape, or form redefining the terms at all. I never posted anything that could remotely be mistaken for new or altered definitions for those terms anywhere in any post I've made in this thread. I said they are poorly defined terms that do not represent any possible phenomenon, they are simply nonsensical abstracts and not very good word usage regardless of whether the sorts of things they are usually used to refer to actually exist or not. That isn't a 'redefinition' of anything. You're full of shit, and you know better than to suggest that I did any such thing.

 

You have merely provided further proof that you are a lying manipulative asshole of a forum troll who is intentionally driving people away from the very faith you claim to support. I'd thank you for it if you weren't doing it to be a prick on a forum where pretty much no one believes in said faith to begin with. I almost hope hell is real just so I can enjoy meeting you there one day, because if the God you pray to actually does exist, that's exactly where you're going for misrepresenting and ignoring his word and teachings the way that you do pretty much every time you post anything on this forum.

[Astreja]

A free willed entity can choose to act at will.

 

As I've said multiple times on here, take the time to understand why double blind protocols exist. A free will entity can choose to act contrary to any experiment hence the supernatural is not subject to the empirical method.

OC, I come from a family of scientists.  I work in a science-heavy profession and am exquisitely good at what I do in My day job.  In high school I got first place in a regional math competition, consistently pulled down high 90s and even a 100% in math exams, and was in the top 1% provincially in senior-grade biology.

 

I bloody well know what a double-blind protocol is and why it's an important tool in understanding the real world.

 

I also know you can't do one if you have no fucking data to assess.  It's pointless to attempt to employ scientific method when there's no empirical evidence for your god, and both disingenuous and cowardly to hide behind that "free will" crap.

 

You, sir, are the quintessential idiot's idiot, and your faith is a sham.

 

(Oh, and learn how to quote properly and succinctly -- For someone with pretensions of teaching us Science Dun Rite™, you seem to be woefully inept at managing the forum word processor.)

[midniterider]

Springy... I will join you.

 

Nothing nasty - OC isn't worth the backlash, maybe just some reflection stuff (right back at ya!) - the genius loci here is very accommodating. It's worked well for me so far...(don't know how or why, don't care). Karma (cause and effect) is a bitch 

 

(And for those who have no belief in any kind of woo - and my experience has just been coincidence - oh well... no harm, no foul)

 

However.. Tarot.. and I'll stick to this, is NOT woo. It's a way to access your own inherent intuition.. or subconscious, if you will. Read some Jung for goodness sake.

 

If one of you sends me a pm with a statement of exactly what you both want to accomplish (reflection would be appropriate as OC really is not worth too much time or energy) I will cast a sigil to that effect using my own system.

[Realist]

You inject many arbitrary assumptions.

 

Who said God needs us? I see no reason whatsoever to assume God needs anything form any of us - including preachers. God has no needs. All we do for God is for our benefit. Not His.

 

You assume because you don't believe He is "hidden". Again, as I've said before what many people mean by hidden is that God does not perform tricks on demand. He may not blind me while walking down  the road, but He is not hidden to me and millions of others.

 

God's word is crystal clear. We screw it up because of who and what we are not because He lacks clarity.

 

So please tell me. How should God have revealed himself to neolithic tribes men?

 

OrdinaryClay also said:

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

Some of your posts are so stupid they defy belief! it takes a lot to make me bother posting these days because I have lost all interest in debating with such people with such distorted and narrow views!

 

OrdinaryClay ... in the above posting you have just basically "shot to shit" the whole argument and need for salvation .. the very reason "your" god created mankind ... the very reason he sent his own son (or himself) to die on a cross so that man could be re-united with him! What does your bible say ... it was done out of LOVE! Remember ... supposedly no man can have a greater love according to your bable! So "your" god does not need mankind?? Amazing!!!

 

I will cut and paste a short paragraph from the excellent book released in 2012 by neuroscientist Dr Kerry Spackman on the subject of belief .. The book is titled "The Ant and the Ferrari"

 

 

It’s the same with life. If our beliefs don’t match Reality — whatever ‘Reality’ is 

— we’re likely to end up with a losing hand. Unfortunately, we often acquire our 

beliefs when we are young and least equipped to audit their validity. But once 

inside us, even demonstrably false beliefs are remarkably immune to contrary 

evidence because of the way our brains work. As we’ll see in Chapter 12, The 

Psychology of Belief, our beliefs distort Reality so that any conflicting information 

is twisted to match our beliefs and keep them intact. It’s as if we wear ‘blue 

mental glasses’ for ‘blue beliefs’ and ‘red mental glasses’ for ‘red beliefs’. That’s 

part of the reason why our own beliefs always seem so sensible to us while 

everyone else’s seem so silly.

As I mentioned before, one of the purposes of this book is to develop tools which 

will allow us to take off our tinted glasses and see things unhindered by our 

human limitations.

‘The door of the prejudiced mind opens outward so that the only result of 

the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more tightly.’ — Ogden Nash

 

[centauri]

He (God) wants willful submission and love.

And will kill to get it.

[Dhampir]

 

 

 

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

I agree there are some that want to believe. There are most certainly others that don't want the supernatural to exist. Most people honestly have never faced the thought of an undeniably true afterlife. Most people give it lip service. Even Christians. Few really tackle the thought of it being genuinely true.

 

 

 

No.  What most people never face is the thought of undeniably true oblivion.  The idea that for 13.8 billion years you did not know you did not exist, and that for another 13.8 googol years after your body has ceased to function, you won't know you ever did exist. That it's possible that you could ever not be is so terrifying, that all of humanity has contrived not to have to so much as consider it.

 

That is silly. Obviously billions of people live their lives just fine knowing they did not exist before being born.

 

Thanks for missing (dodging?) the point. No one considers that this (nothingness) is the state to which they will return, and those that do are typically so terrified of the possibility that they cannot consider it very long.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

A free willed entity can choose to act at will.

 

As I've said multiple times on here, take the time to understand why double blind protocols exist. A free will entity can choose to act contrary to any experiment hence the supernatural is not subject to the empirical method.

OC, I come from a family of scientists.  I work in a science-heavy profession and am exquisitely good at what I do in My day job.  In high school I got first place in a regional math competition, consistently pulled down high 90s and even a 100% in math exams, and was in the top 1% provincially in senior-grade biology.

 

I bloody well know what a double-blind protocol is and why it's an important tool in understanding the real world.

 

I also know you can't do one if you have no fucking data to assess.  It's pointless to attempt to employ scientific method when there's no empirical evidence for your god, and both disingenuous and cowardly to hide behind that "free will" crap.

 

You, sir, are the quintessential idiot's idiot, and your faith is a sham.

 

(Oh, and learn how to quote properly and succinctly -- For someone with pretensions of teaching us Science Dun Rite™, you seem to be woefully inept at managing the forum word processor.)

 

Admitting the protocol is needed is admitting we have free will.

 

No assumption need be made that supernatural entities actually exist to conclude they could confound an empirical process if a person really does understand why blind protocols are needed in experimentation.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

You inject many arbitrary assumptions.

 

Who said God needs us? I see no reason whatsoever to assume God needs anything form any of us - including preachers. God has no needs. All we do for God is for our benefit. Not His.

 

You assume because you don't believe He is "hidden". Again, as I've said before what many people mean by hidden is that God does not perform tricks on demand. He may not blind me while walking down  the road, but He is not hidden to me and millions of others.

 

God's word is crystal clear. We screw it up because of who and what we are not because He lacks clarity.

 

So please tell me. How should God have revealed himself to neolithic tribes men?

 

OrdinaryClay also said:

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

Some of your posts are so stupid they defy belief! it takes a lot to make me bother posting these days because I have lost all interest in debating with such people with such distorted and narrow views!

 

OrdinaryClay ... in the above posting you have just basically "shot to shit" the whole argument and need for salvation .. the very reason "your" god created mankind ... the very reason he sent his own son (or himself) to die on a cross so that man could be re-united with him! What does your bible say ... it was done out of LOVE! Remember ... supposedly no man can have a greater love according to your bable! So "your" god does not need mankind?? Amazing!!!

 

I will cut and paste a short paragraph from the excellent book released in 2012 by neuroscientist Dr Kerry Spackman on the subject of belief .. The book is titled "The Ant and the Ferrari"

 

 

It’s the same with life. If our beliefs don’t match Reality — whatever ‘Reality’ is 

— we’re likely to end up with a losing hand. Unfortunately, we often acquire our 

beliefs when we are young and least equipped to audit their validity. But once 

inside us, even demonstrably false beliefs are remarkably immune to contrary 

evidence because of the way our brains work. As we’ll see in Chapter 12, The 

Psychology of Belief, our beliefs distort Reality so that any conflicting information 

is twisted to match our beliefs and keep them intact. It’s as if we wear ‘blue 

mental glasses’ for ‘blue beliefs’ and ‘red mental glasses’ for ‘red beliefs’. That’s 

part of the reason why our own beliefs always seem so sensible to us while 

everyone else’s seem so silly.

As I mentioned before, one of the purposes of this book is to develop tools which 

will allow us to take off our tinted glasses and see things unhindered by our 

human limitations.

‘The door of the prejudiced mind opens outward so that the only result of 

the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more tightly.’ — Ogden Nash

 

 

Your thinking is shallow. God existed for an eternity prior to creation so clearly He does not need mankind or any created being. The only logical conclusion is that He created out of love and not need. His love is that He offers freely the opportunity for His creation to exist with Him.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

I agree there are some that want to believe. There are most certainly others that don't want the supernatural to exist. Most people honestly have never faced the thought of an undeniably true afterlife. Most people give it lip service. Even Christians. Few really tackle the thought of it being genuinely true.

 

 

 

No.  What most people never face is the thought of undeniably true oblivion.  The idea that for 13.8 billion years you did not know you did not exist, and that for another 13.8 googol years after your body has ceased to function, you won't know you ever did exist. That it's possible that you could ever not be is so terrifying, that all of humanity has contrived not to have to so much as consider it.

 

That is silly. Obviously billions of people live their lives just fine knowing they did not exist before being born.

 

Thanks for missing (dodging?) the point. No one considers that this (nothingness) is the state to which they will return, and those that do are typically so terrified of the possibility that they cannot consider it very long.

 

You are the one that brought up non-existence prior to birth. On the atheist world view oblivion before and after birth are identical so the view of either should be the same. Billions of humans accept and believe in nothingness prior to birth with no consequences. Your point is simply silly.

 

Truth is the idea of oblivion after death is a greater psychological crutch than a belief in the afterlife ever was. Nothing could be easier than to believe that death will the same as before birth.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

You inject many arbitrary assumptions.

 

Who said God needs us? I see no reason whatsoever to assume God needs anything form any of us - including preachers. God has no needs. All we do for God is for our benefit. Not His.

 

You assume because you don't believe He is "hidden". Again, as I've said before what many people mean by hidden is that God does not perform tricks on demand. He may not blind me while walking down  the road, but He is not hidden to me and millions of others.

 

God's word is crystal clear. We screw it up because of who and what we are not because He lacks clarity.

 

So please tell me. How should God have revealed himself to neolithic tribes men?

 

OrdinaryClay also said:

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

Some of your posts are so stupid they defy belief! it takes a lot to make me bother posting these days because I have lost all interest in debating with such people with such distorted and narrow views!

 

OrdinaryClay ... in the above posting you have just basically "shot to shit" the whole argument and need for salvation .. the very reason "your" god created mankind ... the very reason he sent his own son (or himself) to die on a cross so that man could be re-united with him! What does your bible say ... it was done out of LOVE! Remember ... supposedly no man can have a greater love according to your bable! So "your" god does not need mankind?? Amazing!!!

 

I will cut and paste a short paragraph from the excellent book released in 2012 by neuroscientist Dr Kerry Spackman on the subject of belief .. The book is titled "The Ant and the Ferrari"

 

 

It’s the same with life. If our beliefs don’t match Reality — whatever ‘Reality’ is 

— we’re likely to end up with a losing hand. Unfortunately, we often acquire our 

beliefs when we are young and least equipped to audit their validity. But once 

inside us, even demonstrably false beliefs are remarkably immune to contrary 

evidence because of the way our brains work. As we’ll see in Chapter 12, The 

Psychology of Belief, our beliefs distort Reality so that any conflicting information 

is twisted to match our beliefs and keep them intact. It’s as if we wear ‘blue 

mental glasses’ for ‘blue beliefs’ and ‘red mental glasses’ for ‘red beliefs’. That’s 

part of the reason why our own beliefs always seem so sensible to us while 

everyone else’s seem so silly.

As I mentioned before, one of the purposes of this book is to develop tools which 

will allow us to take off our tinted glasses and see things unhindered by our 

human limitations.

‘The door of the prejudiced mind opens outward so that the only result of 

the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more tightly.’ — Ogden Nash

 

 

Your thinking is shallow. God existed for an eternity prior to creation so clearly He does not need mankind or any created being. The only logical conclusion is that He created out of love and not need. His love is that He offers freely the opportunity for His creation to exist with Him.

 

 

If your god exists as a supernatural being, then clearly he must not be God. His behavior in the Bible indicates that he desperately needs humans to massage his massive ego because he's so big of a narcissist that he can't feel loved enough just by loving himself. The fact that your god, as a possible supernatural being, behaves like a sadist and a narcissist and at times even commits hypocrisy and does things that would have been sin if done by humans shows that he is far from perfect. Eternal or not, his behavior and his need for good, submissive sheep to massage his ego leads me to believe that he is not a god. He would be more likely to be an extremely powerful demon than a god that created the universe. 

 

 

 

First this board is clear and convincing evidence that even if God appeared personally before every human many, many, many would still reject Him. The posters on this board have said so in their own words many times.

 

Second, simply believing He exists is clearly not what God desires. Demons believe and tremble. He wants willful submission and love. So your claims about what would happen should He do as you desire are your personal speculations. Perhaps God knows better. He knows our hearts far better than we do.

 

 

 

Well, you have made a point that I actually agree with. You said that many would still reject your god, even if he did prove himself to every human so that everyone could be 100% certain that he is real. Sure, I definitely agree with that. Everyone would believe, but many would still reject being his slaves. So perhaps if he is real, he knows that in my heart, I see him as a monster. He knows all of my reasons for seeing him as such. He also knows why I do not believe. Perhaps, if your god was not a monster, he would prove to me that I was wrong to see him as a monster and explain where I went wrong, though I would still be skeptical of his motives for his actions if his reason sounded at all like "Might makes right" or "You just do not understand". If he had a chance of convincing me that he was not a monster, he would prove himself to me in a way that I could be 100% certain that he exists.

 

Since I see your god as a being that deserves to be labeled an extremely powerful demon, if he exists anyway, instead of God, it is understandable that demons that knew he was real would tremble at his feet. The Supreme demon, the father and creator of all that is evil would certainly make any demon seem pleasant in comparison and they would have to fear him in very much the same way that people trapped in a gang would fear the gang leaders. If they don't like you, "shit happens", as the saying goes. Terrible stuff.

 

Maybe your god sees it as pointless to prove himself to me. If he exists and feels that way, I could understand. It would be because he is a monster and knows it. He has nothing to hide from me because I have seen what a tyrant he is and trying to convince me that he is good would be impossible because I'm not a sheep anymore. I don't go with the herd who still love their shepherd, even when he purposefully abuses them.

[Dhampir]

 

 

 

 

 

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

I agree there are some that want to believe. There are most certainly others that don't want the supernatural to exist. Most people honestly have never faced the thought of an undeniably true afterlife. Most people give it lip service. Even Christians. Few really tackle the thought of it being genuinely true.

 

 

 

No.  What most people never face is the thought of undeniably true oblivion.  The idea that for 13.8 billion years you did not know you did not exist, and that for another 13.8 googol years after your body has ceased to function, you won't know you ever did exist. That it's possible that you could ever not be is so terrifying, that all of humanity has contrived not to have to so much as consider it.

 

That is silly. Obviously billions of people live their lives just fine knowing they did not exist before being born.

 

Thanks for missing (dodging?) the point. No one considers that this (nothingness) is the state to which they will return, and those that do are typically so terrified of the possibility that they cannot consider it very long.

 

You are the one that brought up non-existence prior to birth. On the atheist world view oblivion before and after birth are identical so the view of either should be the same. Billions of humans accept and believe in nothingness prior to birth with no consequences. Your point is simply silly.

 

Truth is the idea of oblivion after death is a greater psychological crutch than a belief in the afterlife ever was. Nothing could be easier than to believe that death will the same as before birth.

 

You're sure about that?  As an atheist, it is very nearly incomprehensible to me that I won't exist shortly. I might assert that if people DID accept this, over however much time it would take to do so, it would be easier.  However, the fear of death, and the fear of oblivion is so great that people have concocted a belief in the afterlife to cope. The idea that this is all that there is and that those escaping justice have escaped eternally, forced people to concoct eternal furnaces to catch those that thought they were clear.

 

I submit that the reason you think there is nothing to fear from this is because you don't believe that this is the end.  Have you truly considered what it means to not be here ever again?  And if you accept that we didn't exist prior to birth, why would we exist after death?  The naturalist view is that there is nothing to fear from oblivion, this is true, but those that haven't accepted this do not take the same approach. I have believed that oblivion is our fate for over a decade, and I am still not reconciled with that fact-- how can you say it's the easier way?

 

Further, do you really believe that a belief in the afterlife is what permits good deeds?  If so, you would by association be asserting that no human does good for its own sake, or rather, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they fear eternal suffering.

[Realist]

Your thinking is shallow. God existed for an eternity prior to creation so clearly He does not need mankind or any created being. The only logical conclusion is that He created out of love and not need. His love is that He offers freely the opportunity for His creation to exist with Him.

 

 

 

 

You remind me of a live worm with one end pinned to to the ground ... it wriggles, twists, turns, tries to go backward ... but it is not capable of any forward movement!

 

Shallow thinking is EXACTLY what you are tied in! You will never understand this because you have no wish to find truth!

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is also clear that many contrive their standards of evidence to fit their preconceived desires.

 

I agree there are some that want to believe. There are most certainly others that don't want the supernatural to exist. Most people honestly have never faced the thought of an undeniably true afterlife. Most people give it lip service. Even Christians. Few really tackle the thought of it being genuinely true.

 

 

 

No.  What most people never face is the thought of undeniably true oblivion.  The idea that for 13.8 billion years you did not know you did not exist, and that for another 13.8 googol years after your body has ceased to function, you won't know you ever did exist. That it's possible that you could ever not be is so terrifying, that all of humanity has contrived not to have to so much as consider it.

 

That is silly. Obviously billions of people live their lives just fine knowing they did not exist before being born.

 

Thanks for missing (dodging?) the point. No one considers that this (nothingness) is the state to which they will return, and those that do are typically so terrified of the possibility that they cannot consider it very long.

 

You are the one that brought up non-existence prior to birth. On the atheist world view oblivion before and after birth are identical so the view of either should be the same. Billions of humans accept and believe in nothingness prior to birth with no consequences. Your point is simply silly.

 

Truth is the idea of oblivion after death is a greater psychological crutch than a belief in the afterlife ever was. Nothing could be easier than to believe that death will the same as before birth.

 

You're sure about that?  As an atheist, it is very nearly incomprehensible to me that I won't exist shortly. I might assert that if people DID accept this, over however much time it would take to do so, it would be easier.  However, the fear of death, and the fear of oblivion is so great that people have concocted a belief in the afterlife to cope. The idea that this is all that there is and that those escaping justice have escaped eternally, forced people to concoct eternal furnaces to catch those that thought they were clear.

 

I submit that the reason you think there is nothing to fear from this is because you don't believe that this is the end.  Have you truly considered what it means to not be here ever again?  And if you accept that we didn't exist prior to birth, why would we exist after death?  The naturalist view is that there is nothing to fear from oblivion, this is true, but those that haven't accepted this do not take the same approach. I have believed that oblivion is our fate for over a decade, and I am still not reconciled with that fact-- how can you say it's the easier way?

 

Further, do you really believe that a belief in the afterlife is what permits good deeds?  If so, you would by association be asserting that no human does good for its own sake, or rather, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they fear eternal suffering.

 

Your words ring hollow. I find it very easy to comprehend and accept the fact that I did not exist before birth.

 

The idea that afterlife belief resulted from revenge desires does not hold up to scrutiny, in my opinion. It is a vary rare person so obsessed with revenge that they need to fabricate beliefs. The belief in the afterlife and its complete universality across cultures and history speaks more for a fundamental truth in the spiritual realm than in revenge thoughts.

 

Good deeds result from free will. Good deeds can be acted out by anyone including atheist or theist. So I fail to understand what good deeds have to do with the afterlife. For ex-Christians it seems many people on this forum have a serious lack of understanding of the gospel whether they believe it or not.