What religion do you do

This reality consists of physical reality (space, matter, energy, and the laws of physics) and consciousness. It is clear that there is a link between the two. By simply willing it to happen, we can make our bodies move, interacting with and changing physical reality. If you pick up an object, you are using consciousness to manipulate physical reality. It is also clear that physical reality can affect consciousness. If your body is injured, you consciously experience pain. If you stand near a flame, you consciously experience the sensation of heat. This suggests that one is subjective to the other and therefore its existence arises from the other. Mainstream, contemporary science would have us believe that consciousness arises from physical reality. However, scientists have no evidence for this. All they know is that there is a link between a brain and consciousness. That only proves that there is a link; it provides no indiciation as to which arises from which.

The closest thing to a physical explanation for consciousness we have is neurons. However, neurons control our entire central nervous system, not just our brain, and they are still there when we are unconscious while sleeping. Our brains make our bodies breathe even when we are not thinking about it and even while we sleep. Our brains turn information from photons into visual images. They do a lot of things that we are not consciously responsible for. Neurons are the basis of a body's central nervous system, not of consciousness. The only evidence that a brain or neurons are responsible for consciousness is that there is a link between the two and there is no other physical explanation for consciousness. However, there does not have to be a physical explanation for consciousness if consciousness is not subjective to physical reality.

We already know that consciousness can affect physical reality. We also know that we dream and essentially create our own realities within our minds. There is no reason to doubt that this can be taken to a further level. There is no evidence, philosophical or empirical, that physical reality can create something as complex and perfect as consciousness, but we already know that consciousness can create anything it wants within its own thoughts. This suggests that this physical reality is subjective to consciousness and is essentially a collective dream of all consciousness experiencing it. Consider also how perfect, how complex yet simple, consciousness is. If it was simply neurons, we would be artificial intelligence no different than an advanced computer, not truly conscious. Consider how perfect physical reality is. It cannot have occured by chance. Everything fits together far too well. It has to originate from consciousness. This leads to only one conclusion: Conscious creates physical reality. We do not exist within the Universe; rather, the Universe exists within us.

That realization answers what, to many people, are the biggest and most important two questions that can be asked: What is the purpose of the Universe? What is the purpose of life? The Universe is what consciousness creates for itself as an environment for experience. Life is what consciousness creates for itself as a means for experience.



This realization, however, leaves another, arguably more important question unanswered: What happens when we die? This question relies in large part on whether or not we, as conscious beings, exist forever. To answer these questions, one must consider what reality really is. Of course reality conists of physical reality and consciousness, but physical reality is subjective to consciousness. Objective reality, then, is essentially two things: Consciousness and time. However, time is not really a thing, so it might be more correct to say that objective reality is only consciousness. Time is simply something that passes. It is objective. That leaves consciousness. Each conscious entity is objective and can be seen as a quantum of consciousness.

Time is infinite. Your life is finite. It is only approximately one century out of eternity. One century out of eternity is a finite number out of infinity, or one out of infinity. One out of infinity is infinitesimally small--so small that most mathematicians would say that it is exactly equal to zero. Although that is not technically correct, the difference between a finite number out of infinity and zero is infinitely small. If your existence is finite, if you die when your body dies, then the chance that this moment in time happens to occur during your finite existence out of infinite time is one out of infinity. That is, if your existence is temporary, then the chance that you currently exist is zero. Yet you exist.

It could, of course, be argued that the above argument is invalid because there will always be someone who exists, and out of infinite possibilities, some extremely unlikely or even infinitely unlikely possibility will always exist. This is true. The current state of the Universe, down to every detail, is one out of an incomprehensibly large number of possibilities, yet here the Universe is, in its current state, despite the unliklihood. This moment in time is one out of infinite. However, it is guaranteed that the Universe exists in some state. It is guaranteed that we are currently in a finite moment in infinite time. Although the chance that the Universe exists in its current state is extremely low, and although the chance that we are currently in this exact moment out of infinite time is infinitely small, the current moment and the current state of the Universe were not chosen at random for this thought experiment; rather, they were chosen because we currently exist in this moment in time and the Universe currently exists in its current state.

With consciousness, one could make a similar argument. Go outside and look around. Do you see a man? Yes, that man exists right now, but what if he does not exist a few decades from now? Why can he not cease to exist? Why can there not be infinite conscious entities over all eternity, each one having a finite lifespan? Why can that conscious being, that man, not cease to exist, only to be replaced by another? Was that man not chosen simply for this thought experiment because he happens to exist right now, in the same way that the current state of the Universe and the current moment in time were chosen in the last thought experiment not at random but because they currently exist? This is true, of course. That man was chosen not at random, but because he happens to be right here right now. Perhaps he will cease to exist and another conscious being will come into existence. That man's existence proves nothing to me. It proves nothing to you. My existence proves nothing to you. Your existence proves nothing to me.

With consciousness, however, it is not that simple. Although that man's consciousness and your consciouss prove nothing to me, my consciousness proves something to me. Although that man's consciosness and my consciousness prove nothing to you, your consciousness can prove something to you. Your existence is everything to you. Literally everything. All you know, all you ever have known, all you ever will known. To you, your existence, your perception, is the entirety of existence itself. If your perception is finite, if it has only existed for a few decades and will only exist for a few more decades, then the rest of infinite time is nothing. It is not like being in this moment where there will always be another, but rather, it is this moment or *nothing*. All other possibilities are identical: Nothingness. All possibilities except this one tiny sliver of eternity. Yet it is this one tiny sliver of eternity, the only one that differs from the rest, the one out of infinity, that currently exists. If it is true that the rest is nothingness, that you will cease to exist, that consciousness can die; that chance is one out of infinity. If your existence is finite, then the chance that you currently exist is zero. If you currently exist, then the chance that your existence is finite is zero. This leaves only one conclusion: Conscious exists forever. Consciousness cannot die.



Knowing that physical reality is subjective to consciousness, and knowing that consciousness exists forever, leaves one question still unanswered: What happens when we die? Given that physical reality is subjective to consciousness, we clearly exist beyond the confines of the physical Universe. When our body dies we break free not only from our body, but from this Universe. Philosophical thought experiments alone cannot tell us for sure where we go, but it is reasonable to assume that, given the fact that we, consciousness, created something as complex and perfect as this Universe, we have the freedom and ability to create other realities and do whatever we desire when we are not bound by the limits of a physial body. Perhaps when our body dies we return to pure consciousness until we are ready to be born into this Universe again, or perhaps we go to a sort of in between reality where there is some level of physical reality but we are more free as if in a dream, or perhaps we remain in this Universe, our perfect creation, but simply without the limits of a body. All that we can be certain of is that, eventually, we will live again. Between birth and death, we experience life. Between death and birth, we can only speculate what we will experience. Regardless of what exists beyond physical incarnation, dying in this life is like turning off your Xbox: You leave the game and return to 'real life'.

Do not fear death. Death is an illusion. Live a good life. Accomplish something worthwhile with your life. Leave Earth a better place than it was when you arrived here. Enjoy your life. When death arrives, accept it openly and move on to your next adventure in this expansive reality and infinite eternity.

^shhhh

the jedi religion

TheShadowOfTruthThis reality consists of physical reality (space, matter, energy, and the laws of physics) and consciousness. It is clear that there is a link between the two. By simply willing it to happen, we can make our bodies move, interacting with and changing physical reality. If you pick up an object, you are using consciousness to manipulate physical reality. It is also clear that physical reality can affect consciousness. If your body is injured, you consciously experience pain. If you stand near a flame, you consciously experience the sensation of heat. This suggests that one is subjective to the other and therefore its existence arises from the other. Mainstream, contemporary science would have us believe that consciousness arises from physical reality. However, scientists have no evidence for this. All they know is that there is a link between a brain and consciousness. That only proves that there is a link; it provides no indiciation as to which arises from which.

The closest thing to a physical explanation for consciousness we have is neurons. However, neurons control our entire central nervous system, not just our brain, and they are still there when we are unconscious while sleeping. Our brains make our bodies breathe even when we are not thinking about it and even while we sleep. Our brains turn information from photons into visual images. They do a lot of things that we are not consciously responsible for. Neurons are the basis of a body's central nervous system, not of consciousness. The only evidence that a brain or neurons are responsible for consciousness is that there is a link between the two and there is no other physical explanation for consciousness. However, there does not have to be a physical explanation for consciousness if consciousness is not subjective to physical reality.

We already know that consciousness can affect physical reality. We also know that we dream and essentially create our own realities within our minds. There is no reason to doubt that this can be taken to a further level. There is no evidence, philosophical or empirical, that physical reality can create something as complex and perfect as consciousness, but we already know that consciousness can create anything it wants within its own thoughts. This suggests that this physical reality is subjective to consciousness and is essentially a collective dream of all consciousness experiencing it. Consider also how perfect, how complex yet simple, consciousness is. If it was simply neurons, we would be artificial intelligence no different than an advanced computer, not truly conscious. Consider how perfect physical reality is. It cannot have occured by chance. Everything fits together far too well. It has to originate from consciousness. This leads to only one conclusion: Conscious creates physical reality. We do not exist within the Universe; rather, the Universe exists within us.

That realization answers what, to many people, are the biggest and most important two questions that can be asked: What is the purpose of the Universe? What is the purpose of life? The Universe is what consciousness creates for itself as an environment for experience. Life is what consciousness creates for itself as a means for experience.



This realization, however, leaves another, arguably more important question unanswered: What happens when we die? This question relies in large part on whether or not we, as conscious beings, exist forever. To answer these questions, one must consider what reality really is. Of course reality conists of physical reality and consciousness, but physical reality is subjective to consciousness. Objective reality, then, is essentially two things: Consciousness and time. However, time is not really a thing, so it might be more correct to say that objective reality is only consciousness. Time is simply something that passes. It is objective. That leaves consciousness. Each conscious entity is objective and can be seen as a quantum of consciousness.

Time is infinite. Your life is finite. It is only approximately one century out of eternity. One century out of eternity is a finite number out of infinity, or one out of infinity. One out of infinity is infinitesimally small--so small that most mathematicians would say that it is exactly equal to zero. Although that is not technically correct, the difference between a finite number out of infinity and zero is infinitely small. If your existence is finite, if you die when your body dies, then the chance that this moment in time happens to occur during your finite existence out of infinite time is one out of infinity. That is, if your existence is temporary, then the chance that you currently exist is zero. Yet you exist.

It could, of course, be argued that the above argument is invalid because there will always be someone who exists, and out of infinite possibilities, some extremely unlikely or even infinitely unlikely possibility will always exist. This is true. The current state of the Universe, down to every detail, is one out of an incomprehensibly large number of possibilities, yet here the Universe is, in its current state, despite the unliklihood. This moment in time is one out of infinite. However, it is guaranteed that the Universe exists in some state. It is guaranteed that we are currently in a finite moment in infinite time. Although the chance that the Universe exists in its current state is extremely low, and although the chance that we are currently in this exact moment out of infinite time is infinitely small, the current moment and the current state of the Universe were not chosen at random for this thought experiment; rather, they were chosen because we currently exist in this moment in time and the Universe currently exists in its current state.

With consciousness, one could make a similar argument. Go outside and look around. Do you see a man? Yes, that man exists right now, but what if he does not exist a few decades from now? Why can he not cease to exist? Why can there not be infinite conscious entities over all eternity, each one having a finite lifespan? Why can that conscious being, that man, not cease to exist, only to be replaced by another? Was that man not chosen simply for this thought experiment because he happens to exist right now, in the same way that the current state of the Universe and the current moment in time were chosen in the last thought experiment not at random but because they currently exist? This is true, of course. That man was chosen not at random, but because he happens to be right here right now. Perhaps he will cease to exist and another conscious being will come into existence. That man's existence proves nothing to me. It proves nothing to you. My existence proves nothing to you. Your existence proves nothing to me.

With consciousness, however, it is not that simple. Although that man's consciousness and your consciouss prove nothing to me, my consciousness proves something to me. Although that man's consciosness and my consciousness prove nothing to you, your consciousness can prove something to you. Your existence is everything to you. Literally everything. All you know, all you ever have known, all you ever will known. To you, your existence, your perception, is the entirety of existence itself. If your perception is finite, if it has only existed for a few decades and will only exist for a few more decades, then the rest of infinite time is nothing. It is not like being in this moment where there will always be another, but rather, it is this moment or *nothing*. All other possibilities are identical: Nothingness. All possibilities except this one tiny sliver of eternity. Yet it is this one tiny sliver of eternity, the only one that differs from the rest, the one out of infinity, that currently exists. If it is true that the rest is nothingness, that you will cease to exist, that consciousness can die; that chance is one out of infinity. If your existence is finite, then the chance that you currently exist is zero. If you currently exist, then the chance that your existence is finite is zero. This leaves only one conclusion: Conscious exists forever. Consciousness cannot die.



Knowing that physical reality is subjective to consciousness, and knowing that consciousness exists forever, leaves one question still unanswered: What happens when we die? Given that physical reality is subjective to consciousness, we clearly exist beyond the confines of the physical Universe. When our body dies we break free not only from our body, but from this Universe. Philosophical thought experiments alone cannot tell us for sure where we go, but it is reasonable to assume that, given the fact that we, consciousness, created something as complex and perfect as this Universe, we have the freedom and ability to create other realities and do whatever we desire when we are not bound by the limits of a physial body. Perhaps when our body dies we return to pure consciousness until we are ready to be born into this Universe again, or perhaps we go to a sort of in between reality where there is some level of physical reality but we are more free as if in a dream, or perhaps we remain in this Universe, our perfect creation, but simply without the limits of a body. All that we can be certain of is that, eventually, we will live again. Between birth and death, we experience life. Between death and birth, we can only speculate what we will experience. Regardless of what exists beyond physical incarnation, dying in this life is like turning off your Xbox: You leave the game and return to 'real life'.

Do not fear death. Death is an illusion. Live a good life. Accomplish something worthwhile with your life. Leave Earth a better place than it was when you arrived here. Enjoy your life. When death arrives, accept it openly and move on to your next adventure in this expansive reality and infinite eternity.

Oooooooh another copy paste from the brave alias. Youre so smart man

zzzskizzzBut I'm not believing it until I see proof, which there is none of. you want to try to say that I'm close minded because of that go ahead.

you should start exploring different reasons to justify your position.....there is already tons of 'proof' to support these ideologies. in our society we value witness testimony as 'proof'. bet you forgot that...or you're just a hypocrite while there are people rotting in jail because of witness testimonial.

inb4 but those witnesses are under oath!

Food_Stampsyou should start exploring different reasons to justify your position.....there is already tons of 'proof' to support these ideologies. in our society we value witness testimony as 'proof'. bet you forgot that...or you're just a hypocrite while there are people rotting in jail because of witness testimonial.

inb4 but those witnesses are under oath!

Are you talking about religion? Because you are taking a very simple minded approach if you are.

So lets think about this. As a culture we are miles ahead of what we were 2,000 years ago or whenever the bible was written ( really don't care when it was written because its a hypocritical book written with a multitude of contradictions). We have far more understanding of how the world works nowadays. It is completely reasonable, then, to assume that these "witnesses" are not credible solely because of their ignorance.

Let me simplify. In mankind's youth, when something happened that man had no explanation for, they assumed it was the workings of a higher power. This, through thousands of years, developed into the belief of a god that people now hold today. So someone saw a lighting bolt, "oh gods angry". A great flood, "oh gods angry". A coincidence, "oh this is a miracle". Religion was created from peoples lack of understanding of how the world works.

Also, relevant and a similar position I have on religion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfUj09pWfM

Granite_StateAre you talking about religion? Because you are taking a very simple minded approach if you are.

So lets think about this. As a culture we are miles ahead of what we were 2,000 years ago or whenever the bible was written ( really don't care when it was written because its a hypocritical book written with a multitude of contradictions). We have far more understanding of how the world works nowadays. It is completely reasonable, then, to assume that these "witnesses" are not credible solely because of their ignorance.

Let me simplify. In mankind's youth, when something happened that man had no explanation for, they assumed it was the workings of a higher power. This, through thousands of years, developed into the belief of a god that people now hold today. So someone saw a lighting bolt, "oh gods angry". A great flood, "oh gods angry". A coincidence, "oh this is a miracle". Religion was created from peoples lack of understanding of how the world works.

Also, relevant and a similar position I have on religion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfUj09pWfM

nope, simply making a point about "proof" in today's society. if you flat out claim that there is no proof on this subject then all the 'criminals' who are behind bars because of witness testimonial should be freed. how can witness testimonial be a legit form of evidence in a court of law but not in everyday thinking lol? is it because the witness in court was sworn under oath(god)?

as far as religion goes, can you even prove that man wrote the bible, quran, etc....? not saying that I believe they weren't written by man, but do you actually have proof?

Food_Stampsnope, simply making a point about "proof" in today's society. if you flat out claim that there is no proof on this subject then all the 'criminals' who are behind bars because of witness testimonial should be freed. how can witness testimonial be a legit form of evidence in a court of law but not in everyday thinking lol? is it because the witness in court was sworn under oath(god)?

as far as religion goes, can you even prove that man wrote the bible, quran, etc....? not saying that I believe they weren't written by man, but do you actually have proof?

You are taking a very awkward approach to this.

First of let me say that I don't think ANY witness testimonials are credible. People have bias. And its been proven that witnesses are unreliable. Just look at Ferguson. You've heard the saying, there's two sides to every story...

As for your second part, by that chain of thinking, how can you prove anything written before the digital age was written by man? Besides multiple historical accounts I guess you can't. But thats a silly way of thinking. Its like saying "how can you prove dinosaurs lived on the earth if all we have is the bones? You have no proof of a living dinosaur, just the remains." Its a flawed and illogical way of thinking...

Granite_StateYou are taking a very awkward approach to this.

First of let me say that I don't think ANY witness testimonials are credible. People have bias. And its been proven that witnesses are unreliable. Just look at Ferguson. You've heard the saying, there's two sides to every story...

As for your second part, by that chain of thinking, how can you prove anything written before the digital age was written by man? Besides multiple historical accounts I guess you can't. But thats a silly way of thinking. Its like saying "how can you prove dinosaurs lived on the earth if all we have is the bones? You have no proof of a living dinosaur, just the remains." Its a flawed and illogical way of thinking...

huh lol??? no witness testimonials are credible......so why is witness testimonial a legit form of evidence in a court of law??? that is the point...what's awkward about that? a silly way of thinking? label it whatever you want, you are still agreeing with me lol!
"besides multiple historical accounts I guess you can't"......so in other words, "besides the witness testimonials" lol. you said witness testimonial is not credible so you must be making your judgments based on FAITH alone since you said yourself that the only actual evidence we're presented with is witness testimonial. the only real proof is apparently not even credible, so really, you are steered by your personal faith, not proof.
jeez, remains of fossils which were once organic? yes, you can prove that dinosaur was once living. can you prove who wrote a book? even if the author left his name on the cover, is that proof? did you ever see him write it? however you could prove that the book was once just a bunch of papers at one time.

zzzskizzzThey are interrelated but you clearly don't know that much about it from what you posted.

Well I wasn't getting into it, per say. Simply just touching on it. We could get into theoretical physics and try to discuss the true nature of the universe, but considering the top scientists don't actually know and just have theories, I doubt we will be able to have a legit conversation about it on NS.


I guess some questions to ask would be:

If god is as religion claims him to be, why all the smoke and mirrors (such as the universe as we think we know it) if it truly was created just for us?

If there is a higher power and it's not all about us (which the existence of the universe would suggest in my mind) where do we fit in when considering the bigger picture?

Is any of this even real? With the whole quantum physics thing, everything can be everywhere and anywhere simultaneously, so is anything that we perceive as real even there at all? Perhaps there is a 'god' of sorts but we aren't as important as we would like to think, but instead more of a science project. What we see and think we know could be a slice of the bigger picture. If we, in a 3d reality contact something 'alive' in a 3d world, they wouldn't have the ability to see us as we truly are. Now if you go the other way (that is, if you believe more dimensions than what we can experience - it would explain the missing mass in the universe) there could be 4d+ beings in and amongst us without us even realizing what they are, most likely never even knowing they are there.

Instead of saying I'm wrong and I don't know anything about physics, how about you try to converse with me why you think I am wrong and give your own thoughts on what I am mentioning.

Related: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/an-experiment-to-determine-if-the-universe-is-a-hologram-begins/


Hmmmmm...

huh lol??? no witness testimonials are credible......so why is witness testimonial a legit form of evidence in a court of law??? that is the point...what's awkward about that? a silly way of thinking? label it whatever you want, you are still agreeing with me lol!

First of all my post on this was opinion. Yes I don't think witness testimonials are credible. Even if they are a valid form of evidence in a court of law. Just because a government believes these are valid doesn't mean I have to believe they are valid. There are 1,000's of cases where witnesses have been found out to be lying, or got details mixed up, or information just plain wrong. Like I said before, humans are emotion driven, biased individuals, that make mistakes all the time. Why would I think what they say on an event would be credible?

"besides multiple historical accounts I guess you can't"......so in other words, "besides the witness testimonials" lol. you said witness testimonial is not credible so you must be making your judgments based on FAITH alone since you said yourself that the only actual evidence we're presented with is witness testimonial. the only real proof is apparently not even credible, so really, you are steered by your personal faith, not proof.

Maybe I should have been clear. There are hand written bibles, the oldest bibles in the world. And there isn't just one bible. There are hundreds of variations, written by different people. Look up the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those were written by people over 2,000 years ago. I don't know if you realize Christians and Jews don't believe the bible was written by god, its was written by over 40 contributors who "witnessed" these events. I guess you aren't really being clear enough about this "real proof"...The Dead Sea Scrolls are just one example of real proof.

jeez, remains of fossils which were once organic? yes, you can prove that dinosaur was once living. can you prove who wrote a book? even if the author left his name on the cover, is that proof? did you ever see him write it? however you could prove that the book was once just a bunch of papers at one time.

This is just flawed logic. Of course the author wrote it, or someone pretending to be the author did or the text would have never been transcribed to paper...

Granite_StateFirst of all my post on this was opinion. Yes I don't think witness testimonials are credible. Even if they are a valid form of evidence in a court of law. Just because a government believes these are valid doesn't mean I have to believe they are valid. There are 1,000's of cases where witnesses have been found out to be lying, or got details mixed up, or information just plain wrong. Like I said before, humans are emotion driven, biased individuals, that make mistakes all the time. Why would I think what they say on an event would be credible?



Maybe I should have been clear. There are hand written bibles, the oldest bibles in the world. And there isn't just one bible. There are hundreds of variations, written by different people. Look up the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those were written by people over 2,000 years ago. I don't know if you realize Christians and Jews don't believe the bible was written by god, its was written by over 40 contributors who "witnessed" these events. I guess you aren't really being clear enough about this "real proof"...The Dead Sea Scrolls are just one example of real proof.



This is just flawed logic. Of course the author wrote it, or someone pretending to be the author did or the text would have never been transcribed to paper...

what the actual fuck? in your opinion, witness testimony is "not valid evidence". but then in the case of any religious text you claim that the witness testimonies from these people are more legit and is actual "real proof"??? huh??? witness testimony is invalid proof one moment and then it is valid proof the next haha.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls are just one example of real proof."
are you fuckin retarded? the dead sea scrolls are just one example of a collection of stories from WITNESS TESTIMONY! you just finished saying witness testimony is not valid, but now it is valid lol?

"flawed logic"......fuck, irony. did you take bath salts earlier today?
the Sumerian tablets are even older than the dead sea scrolls, you can't prove who wrote either, only their existence lol.

If human evolution is properly examined, it becomes quite evident that all religions form based upon groups of isolated peoples in varying climates and regions.

Forms of humanity have existed for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. The earliest forms of life to differentiate from primates are the Australopithecus genus which began around 3.5 millions years ago. This is the first group to differentiate themselves from primates. As you know evolution continued for the next 3.5 million years.

After the latest ice age dissipated from the northern hemispheres the most recent forms of humans which is all of us, homo sapiens, had already existed for a quarter of a million years. All peoples religions are based upon our ancestors lives.

One of the oldest known religions - Zoroastrianism derived from the middle east where it is thought civilization began.

Some religions today are just relics of other prehistoric beliefs with tall tales sprinkled in.

Organized religions today are only a catalyst for hate. In actuality it should congregate people together. We all are a remnant of a massive lineage of science.


At least thats what my bong rips just revealed to me.

There is no way this thread could've gone well

Food_Stampswhat the actual fuck? in your opinion, witness testimony is "not valid evidence". but then in the case of any religious text you claim that the witness testimonies from these people are more legit and is actual "real proof"??? huh??? witness testimony is invalid proof one moment and then it is valid proof the next haha.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls are just one example of real proof."
are you fuckin retarded? the dead sea scrolls are just one example of a collection of stories from WITNESS TESTIMONY! you just finished saying witness testimony is not valid, but now it is valid lol?

"flawed logic"......fuck, irony. did you take bath salts earlier today?
the Sumerian tablets are even older than the dead sea scrolls, you can't prove who wrote either, only their existence lol.

Jesus christ you are fucking stupid. I try to refrain from personal attacks but your basic lack of reading comprehension and the fact that you are calling me out leaves me no choice.

Hey buddy, let me make this clear for you, I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. Where did I ever say, in any of my posts, that I believed ANYTHING written in the bible? I didn't. I believe most of it is bullshit. I don't think you could have fucked up comprehending my posts any more than you did. LOL.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean. All cultures that are/were real. They were clearly written by people...

Guess what, the Sumerian Tablets were (ps, they weren't written)inscribed, get this, by Sumerians! Who would have thought right?

Granite_StateJesus christ you are fucking stupid. I try to refrain from personal attacks but your basic lack of reading comprehension and the fact that you are calling me out leaves me no choice.

Hey buddy, let me make this clear for you, I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. Where did I ever say, in any of my posts, that I believed ANYTHING written in the bible? I didn't. I believe most of it is bullshit. I don't think you could have fucked up comprehending my posts any more than you did. LOL.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean. All cultures that are/were real. They were clearly written by people...

Guess what, the Sumerian Tablets were (ps, they weren't written)inscribed, get this, by Sumerians! Who would have thought right?

"where did I ever say, in any of my posts, that I believed ANYTHING written in the bible?"

.......umm, when did I say, in any of my posts, that you believed anything written in the bible? lol

"Yes, I don't think witness testimonials are credible."
"The Dead Sea Scrolls(witness testimonies) are just one example of REAL PROOF."

like I said, I hate to break it to you but the dead sea scrolls is a collection of stories from WITNESS TESTIMONY....how can you say these witness testimonies are "real proof" when you just finished stating that there is no credibility to witness testimony? bath salts?
I already agreed that those religious texts were written by people, son.......I'm asking you, can you actually prove who(individual/s) wrote them? or can you only generalize and say the type of people who wrote it.....sumerian, jew, roman, etc? sorry if I made you feel offended or threatened in any way.

DrailWell I wasn't getting into it, per say. Simply just touching on it. We could get into theoretical physics and try to discuss the true nature of the universe, but considering the top scientists don't actually know and just have theories, I doubt we will be able to have a legit conversation about it on NS.


I guess some questions to ask would be:

If god is as religion claims him to be, why all the smoke and mirrors (such as the universe as we think we know it) if it truly was created just for us?

If there is a higher power and it's not all about us (which the existence of the universe would suggest in my mind) where do we fit in when considering the bigger picture?

Is any of this even real? With the whole quantum physics thing, everything can be everywhere and anywhere simultaneously, so is anything that we perceive as real even there at all? Perhaps there is a 'god' of sorts but we aren't as important as we would like to think, but instead more of a science project. What we see and think we know could be a slice of the bigger picture. If we, in a 3d reality contact something 'alive' in a 3d world, they wouldn't have the ability to see us as we truly are. Now if you go the other way (that is, if you believe more dimensions than what we can experience - it would explain the missing mass in the universe) there could be 4d+ beings in and amongst us without us even realizing what they are, most likely never even knowing they are there.

Instead of saying I'm wrong and I don't know anything about physics, how about you try to converse with me why you think I am wrong and give your own thoughts on what I am mentioning.

love this post, you already know this, but there is a simple way to recognize that these dimensions really do exist beyond our physical senses. we can't physically sense radio waves, micro waves, gravity waves.........but they exist.

ZZZskiZZZ said he didn't believe in god because there is no proof. Then you write this...

Food_Stampsyou should start exploring different reasons to justify your position.....there is already tons of 'proof' to support these ideologies. in our society we value witness testimony as 'proof'. bet you forgot that...or you're just a hypocrite while there are people rotting in jail because of witness testimonial.

inb4 but those witnesses are under oath!

Then I called you out saying that witness testimony isn't proof.

Then you said this:s far "as religion goes, can you even prove that man wrote the bible, quran, etc....? not saying that I believe they weren't written by man, but do you actually have proof?"

Then I told you about the Dead Sea Scrolls which is proof man wrote the bible (or the rudimentary form of it)

Food_Stamps"where did I ever say, in any of my posts, that I believed ANYTHING written in the bible?"

.......umm, when did I say, in any of my posts, that you believed anything written in the bible? lol

"Yes, I don't think witness testimonials are credible."
"The Dead Sea Scrolls(witness testimonies) are just one example of REAL PROOF."

like I said, I hate to break it to you but the dead sea scrolls is a collection of stories from WITNESS TESTIMONY....how can you say these witness testimonies are "real proof" when you just finished stating that there is no credibility to witness testimony? bath salts?
I already agreed that those religious texts were written by people, son.......I'm asking you, can you actually prove who(individual/s) wrote them? or can you only generalize and say the type of people who wrote it.....sumerian, jew, roman, etc? sorry if I made you feel offended or threatened in any way.

Once again, never said the testimonies were proof, but rather that the scrolls were proof man wrote the bible, something you claim we don't have any proof of.

And that is why you have fucking terrible reading comprehension.

Granite_StateZZZskiZZZ said he didn't believe in god because there is no proof. Then you write this...



Then I called you out saying that witness testimony isn't proof.

Then you said this:s far "as religion goes, can you even prove that man wrote the bible, quran, etc....? not saying that I believe they weren't written by man, but do you actually have proof?"

Then I told you about the Dead Sea Scrolls which is proof man wrote the bible (or the rudimentary form of it)



Once again, never said the testimonies were proof, but rather that the scrolls were proof man wrote the bible, something you claim we don't have any proof of.

And that is why you have fucking terrible reading comprehension.

Oh and the second thing I quoted from you completely contradicts your final few sentences of the third quote. Good job buddy, you'll get it some day!

Granite_StateZZZskiZZZ said he didn't believe in god because there is no proof. Then you write this...



Then I called you out saying that witness testimony isn't proof.

Then you said this:s far "as religion goes, can you even prove that man wrote the bible, quran, etc....? not saying that I believe they weren't written by man, but do you actually have proof?"

Then I told you about the Dead Sea Scrolls which is proof man wrote the bible (or the rudimentary form of it)



Once again, never said the testimonies were proof, but rather that the scrolls were proof man wrote the bible, something you claim we don't have any proof of.

And that is why you have fucking terrible reading comprehension.

shit, the irony." the dead sea scrolls is proof that man wrote the bible."

ok so, the dead sea scrolls is a collection of WITNESS TESTIMONY. you said yourself that WITNESS TESTIMONY is not valid form of proof. so if the dead sea scrolls are an invalid form of proof then how can they be proof of man writing the bible? they can't be proof of anything if it is an invalid form of evidence? hahahahahahaha!

buddy, I didn't claim there's no proof regarding the writings of religious texts. the opposite, I claimed, "there is tons of proof available" since witness testimony is a valid form of evidence. you're the one who is claiming we don't have proof by saying that witness testimony is an invalid form of proof. feeling like a jackass yet haha?

long story short, you're saying the best proof we have available is witness testimonies and at the same time saying witness testimonies is not a valid enough form of proof, no matter what any person or gov. tells you....thanks for the laughs.

Granite_StateOnce again, never said the testimonies were proof, but rather that the scrolls were proof man wrote the bible, something you claim we don't have any proof of.

And that is why you have fucking terrible reading comprehension.

just noticed this gem lol, so witness testimonies are not real proof but the scrolls(which are witness testimonies) were real proof. gold.

Food_Stampsjust noticed this gem lol, so witness testimonies are not real proof but the scrolls(which are witness testimonies) were real proof. gold.

PROOF THAT MAN WROTE THE BIBLE. Like what the actual fuck. What don't you get about this?

Granite_StatePROOF THAT MAN WROTE THE BIBLE. Like what the actual fuck. What don't you get about this?

.......the dead sea scrolls is WITNESS TESTIMONY........you said WITNESS TESTIMONY is not valid form of proof? hahahahahahaha!!!!!

I believe witness testimony is real proof, you're the one who said witness testimony is not a valid form of proof, black and white quotes too hahahahahaha!

you're basically saying that the witness testimonies from the dead sea scrolls are a valid form of evidence but other witness testimonies are not valid enough proof? maybe you should wait for those salts to wear off.

Food_Stamps.......the dead sea scrolls is WITNESS TESTIMONY........you said WITNESS TESTIMONY is not valid form of proof? hahahahahahaha!!!!!

I believe witness testimony is real proof, you're the one who said witness testimony is not a valid form of proof, black and white quotes too hahahahahaha!

THE WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE IS WITNESS TESTIMONY. That doesn't mean that it wasn't written by man.

The Dead Sea scrolls are pieces of papyrus, parchment, and bronze written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean. They are real things, in a museum. That IS proof the bible was written by man. Like fuck, I feel like Im talking to an autistic five year old right now. LIKE A PHYSICAL OBJECT IS PROOF. I'm not, nor have I ever been, talking about whats written on them. Their mere existence is proof that man wrote the bible considering this was the bible essentially in its most basic form. Holy fuck dude.

granite: hey, witness testimonials are not a valid form of evidence, I don't care if it's even usable in a court of law.

guy: shit, ok.

granite: but those dead sea scrolls, those were some really legit witness testimonials, I would even go so far as to say that those scrolls are an example of real valid proof.

Food_Stampsgranite: hey, witness testimonials are not a valid form of evidence, I don't care if it's even usable in a court of law.

guy: shit, ok.

granite: but those dead sea scrolls, those were some really legit witness testimonials, I would even go so far as to say that those scrolls are an example of real valid proof.

Granite_StateTHE WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE IS WITNESS TESTIMONY. That doesn't mean that it wasn't written by man.

The Dead Sea scrolls are pieces of papyrus, parchment, and bronze written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean. They are real things, in a museum. That IS proof the bible was written by man. Like fuck, I feel like Im talking to an autistic five year old right now. LIKE A PHYSICAL OBJECT IS PROOF. I'm not, nor have I ever been, talking about whats written on them. Their mere existence is proof that man wrote the bible considering this was the bible essentially in its most basic form. Holy fuck dude.

which is why I asked if you could prove who actually wrote the pages? existence does not prove origins, son. it just proves existence.

and this is a huge lol....."THE WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE IS WITNESS TESTIMONY."
but you said witness testimony is not real valid evidence, why even mention those passages? it's like saying witness testimony isn't a valid form of evidence in a courtroom and then calling up a witness to listen to his/her testimony to use as evidence lol.
and again, I never said the bible was not written by man, what are you babbling on about? hahahaha!

Granite_StateTHE WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE IS WITNESS TESTIMONY. That doesn't mean that it wasn't written by man.

The Dead Sea scrolls are pieces of papyrus, parchment, and bronze written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean. They are real things, in a museum. That IS proof the bible was written by man. Like fuck, I feel like Im talking to an autistic five year old right now. LIKE A PHYSICAL OBJECT IS PROOF. I'm not, nor have I ever been, talking about whats written on them. Their mere existence is proof that man wrote the bible considering this was the bible essentially in its most basic form. Holy fuck dude.

"They are real things, in a museum."
fuck, were you actually arguing the existence of the bible??? hahahahahaha we're talking about origins here, not existence.

"I already agreed that those religious texts were written by people, son.......I'm asking you, can you actually prove who(individual/s) wrote them?"

nowhere do I ask about the existence of the bible lol....

Food_Stampswhich is why I asked if you could prove who actually wrote the pages? existence does not prove origins, son. it just proves existence.

and this is a huge lol....."THE WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE IS WITNESS TESTIMONY."
but you said witness testimony is not real valid evidence, why even mention those passages? it's like saying witness testimony isn't a valid form of evidence in a courtroom and then calling up a witness to listen to his/her testimony to use as evidence lol.
and again, I never said the bible was not written by man, what are you babbling on about? hahahaha!

I never claimed to know or even stated who specifically wrote the bible (though I did say it had 40 contributors). You said there was no proof man wrote the bible. I said the Dead sea scrolls were physical proof that man wrote the bible. You went off on this tangent about how I don't think witness testimony was credible and that I was on bathsalts. You made yourself look like an asshat, son.......

Food_Stamps"They are real things, in a museum."
fuck, were you actually arguing the existence of the bible??? hahahahahaha we're talking about origins here, not existence.

no no no, YOU'RE talking origins. I've been talking existence ever since you said we couldn't prove it was written by man.

Settle down, you two.

Granite_StateI never claimed to know or even stated who specifically wrote the bible (though I did say it had 40 contributors). You said there was no proof man wrote the bible. I said the Dead sea scrolls were physical proof that man wrote the bible. You went off on this tangent about how I don't think witness testimony was credible and that I was on bathsalts. You made yourself look like an asshat, son.......

fuck, kid.....I never said you claimed to know who wrote the bible, are you ok??? I ASKED you if you had any proof of who wrote it hahahahahahaha!
there is no proof man wrote the bible, the physical existence of those scrolls is not evidence of man writing the bible.

"you went off on this tangent about how I don't think witness testimony was credible"............

"First off let me say that I don't think any witness testimony is credible."

oh, except in the case of the scrolls, right? hahahahaha

lol the scrolls physically alone provide zero evidence to who wrote the bible, UNLESS YOU TAKE THE WORD OF THE TESTIMONIALS AS TRUTH!(which you already said have no validity)

Granite_Stateno no no, YOU'RE talking origins. I've been talking existence ever since you said we couldn't prove it was written by man.

uhhhhhhhh why would you talk about existence, are you retarded? society is well aware that the bible physically exists, now I know you're trolling hahahaa!

I said theres no proof of man writing the bible.......that doesn't mean I believe the bible doesn't physically exist.....are you ok?

think about it.....if I asked, "who wrote the bible" then wouldn't I already know that the bible exists? why would I be asking about who wrote something if it doesn't physically exist?

I feel like if I asked you who made my sandwich you would respond like, "your sandwich definitely physically exists."

The referenced post has been removed.

lol the scrolls physically alone provide zero evidence to who wrote the bible, UNLESS YOU TAKE THE WORD OF THE TESTIMONIALS AS TRUTH!(which you already said have no validity)

This is why you are either borderline retarded or trolling. That is like the definition of proof. A man,or many of them, wrote what was on those pieces of parchment. Hence, man wrote the bible (though there are many variations of the bible, this relates to the Hebrew one).

Like who the fuck else do you think wrote it? An alien? A mystical dragon in the sky?

You are pretty much saying physical evidence doesn't constitute proof but unreliable witness testimony does. Do you realize how foolish you sound? Humans wrote what was on those scrolls, what I'm saying has nothing to do with what they wrote about.

guy: hey, who wrote harry potter?

granite: fuck who wrote it or where it came from, your harry potter book definitely physically exists.

guy: thanks for the heads up.

Granite_StateThis is why you are either borderline retarded or trolling. That is like the definition of proof. A man,or many of them, wrote what was on those pieces of parchment. Hence, man wrote the bible (though there are many variations of the bible, this relates to the Hebrew one).

Like who the fuck else do you think wrote it? An alien? A mystical dragon in the sky?

You are pretty much saying physical evidence doesn't constitute proof but unreliable witness testimony does. Do you realize how foolish you sound? Humans wrote what was on those scrolls, what I'm saying has nothing to do with what they wrote about.

ummmm, well personally I believe(but can't possibly know 100%) that it was written by man, I even stated that right from the start so you can give that a rest now lol. "humans wrote what was on those scrolls" so let's see your evidence......and don't just show me the physical book hahahahaa! surely you definitively know or witnessed an individual write on those pieces of parchment. there is zero proof involved here, just blind faith.
if you want to talk "physical evidence" so much then what about those Sumerian tablets(pre bible)? they're said to not be written by man...

Food_Stampsguy: hey, who wrote harry potter?

granite: fuck who wrote it or where it came from, your harry potter book definitely physically exists.

guy: thanks for the heads up.

Here I fixed it for you:

Guy1: who wrote Harry Potter?

Food_stamps: No one knows who actually wrote it

Guy 2: But I have here the orginal copy hand written by JK Rowling...

Food_stamps: Dewd...thats not
proof that she actually wrote it brosafari!!!

Guy 3: I heard from this dude that he saw her writing it...

Food_stamps: Now thats proof!

Granite_StateHere I fixed it for you:

Guy1: who wrote Harry Potter?

Food_stamps: No one knows who actually wrote it

Guy 2: But I have here the orginal copy hand written by JK Rowling...

Food_stamps: Dewd...thats not
proof that she actually wrote it brosafari!!!

Guy 3: I heard from this dude that he saw her writing it...

Food_stamps: Now thats proof!

not bad! now, can you do that for the bible? and don't fuckin try to tell me, "I never claimed to be able to do that for the bible." i'll try too.

guy: hey, who wrote the bible?

granite: well first of all let me just start off by saying that the bible definitely physically exists. now, there are some names of people associated with writing the bible, i guess they are 100% legit even though this is an example of witness testimony and I don't actually believe that witness testimony is a legit form of evidence.

guy: so you can't know for 100% certainty, but you are in fact certain.

granite: that's right. peace and love.

this thread is full of close-minded clowns.

zuesthis thread is full of close-minded clowns.

Well, I consider myself to be an open minded, theistic evolutionist. Meaning, I believe God worked through the physical universe to create mankind. In addition, I believe that God's love and mercy will come to each person one day.

zuesthis thread is full of close-minded clowns.

lol

zuesthis thread is full of close-minded clowns.

well you have to be at least slightly close minded to follow religion and ignore science.

Granite_StateThis is why you are either borderline retarded or trolling. That is like the definition of proof. A man,or many of them, wrote what was on those pieces of parchment. Hence, man wrote the bible (though there are many variations of the bible, this relates to the Hebrew one).

Like who the fuck else do you think wrote it? An alien? A mystical dragon in the sky?

You are pretty much saying physical evidence doesn't constitute proof but unreliable witness testimony does. Do you realize how foolish you sound? Humans wrote what was on those scrolls, what I'm saying has nothing to do with what they wrote about.

There were a lot of things over time taken out of the Bible and writings about Jesus because they were found out to be untrue. There's still no historical evidence that Jews ever lived in Egypt, or having slaves. there has also never been any archaeological evidence that they traveled through the desert for 40 years which definitely would have left some sort of trail, and artifacts.

Food_Stampsyou should start exploring different reasons to justify your position.....there is already tons of 'proof' to support these ideologies. in our society we value witness testimony as 'proof'. bet you forgot that...or you're just a hypocrite while there are people rotting in jail because of witness testimonial.

inb4 but those witnesses are under oath!

Your argument makes 0 sense, there is no proof that God exists or made the universe. That doesn't make me a hypocrite I'm not a judge who puts people in jail.

zzzskizzzYour argument makes 0 sense, there is no proof that God exists or made the universe. That doesn't make me a hypocrite I'm not a judge who puts people in jail.

yes, according to society there is technically proof that a god exists. our society's laws say that witness testimony is a form of proof, it is used in a court of law. there is plenty of this "proof" in witness testimonials, people with stories of god being real, miracles, etc...

Food_Stampsyes, according to society there is technically proof that a god exists. our society's laws say that witness testimony is a form of proof, it is used in a court of law. there is plenty of this "proof" in witness testimonials, people with stories of god being real, miracles, etc...

That's great our society's legal system accepts I witness testimonies as proof. it is been shown by psychiatrists that you actually can inplant a false memory into people. while we're on the subject I also don't agree with mob mentality so we should take the jury split them into 2 groups of 6 and have each of them give the verdict, only then if they match should we find the person guilty. I will say the second time your argument makes no sense that is not my stance on proof.