If you drop an apple, it will hit the ground. Over and over again.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

And that's why I don't believe in UFO's or the Easter Bunny.

For over 700 years, there have been reports of UFO's. For over 10,000 years, there has been reports of magical intelligent beings... Ra, Zeus, Thor and a veritable cornucopia of beings which explained the unexplainable at the time. The "Gods" were tweaked throughout the years and only when it became painfully apparent that the old "God" was bullshit, did the lemmings of the day adopt the new improved "god" or "Gods."

As man's ability to reason and the collective thought and experience grew, we learned that the sun was not a god, that there was no Mount Olympus housing a gang of Gods.

Each time one of these transitions took place, a socio-political change was not far behind. Growing pains, I guess.


Oops, there goes the door bell. Gotta go. (Hope it's not a bolt of lightning)

[Elidor]

1. The Easter Bunny is REAL, dammit!

Why must you mock my beliefs???

[Oldtimeralso]

27. Yes,The Easter Bunny is REAL

Santa and the tooth fairy told me so!

[patrice]

2. Religions are an expression of the human impulse to codify that

which is beyond the rational mind, beyond language, beyond thought. Science doesn't have anything to say one way or another about that which is beyond the rational mind, not positive, not negative, simply mute, because Science is rational.

Science does not negate religion because Science itself is limited by the nature of proof, because of this limitation Science never delivers 100% results. It also recognizes that no matter how close to 100% it delivers in its results/scientific knowledge, the "anomolous" fraction .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, or whatever, may or MAY NOT be consistent with whatever hypothesis is being tested, no matter how strong the data is otherwise.

This fact means that you can hypothesize anything, even things that are non-rational, but you can't go beyond hypothesis, you can't produce "knowledge" because knowledge is rational. On edit: and "divine"/100% religious "knowledge" is blasphemy.

I'm always puzzled by rational arguments for or against the non-rational, e.g. intelligent design.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

8. How can one negate something that does not exest in the physical world?

[patrice]

9. Exactly! That's why Science is not anti-religion.

Religion is 0 within the construct of "scientific" knowledge.

It's an important point, because many "on the other side" feel assaulted by rationalism, so they are defensive and attack back with campaigns like "Intelligent Design".

I think they think Science is bad for children too, it'll ruin their beliefs, because it is supposedly against anything that is non-rational, and will thus destroy the value placed on ideals and dreams, when, in fact, ideals and dreams really are allowable hypotheses, about which Science has NOTHING to say.

The whole debate is the result of the fact that most people don't know what, exactly, Science is. It is pretty sad.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

11. We live in a "don't burst our bubble" country today. (n/t)

[The Doctor.]

86. Ever heard the phrase; "He was so heavenly-minded, he was

of No Earthly good."?

Well we're working on some 'Earthly Good' over here;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4275154

Come and kick!

[ChickMagic]

3. I know that Christians are atheists

about Zeus, Thor and countless other gods. In that way, we are very much alike. I just believe in one less god than they do.

[Kraklen]

4. Disneyland and Daffy Duck.

If you ask people about it, a percentage of them will remember when they were a kid at Disneyland and got their photograph taken with Daffy Duck, not Donald Duck but Daffy Duck.

The more you talk to them about it, the more vividly they remember it happening.

Daffy Duck is a Warner Bros. character and has never appeared at Disneyland.

Upon hearing this they'll be a certain percentage who become irate and claim they're being conspired against.

[Maru Kitteh]

107. You actually have that kind of time?

Wow. Must be nice.

[SonofMass]

5. Prove that the sun isn't a god.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. Yeah, but Candyman is real!

Candyman is gonna get you!

[Clark2008]

7. I believe something is out there - but whether they have

the technology to build light-speed-fast UFOs that could reach Earth? Well, my jury's out on that.

I mean, if there's nothing else out there, it's an awful waste of space.

[Prism]

10. Don't piss off Zeus, man . . .

I had a pretty busy week, so my bi-monthly sacrificial yak offering to the god of thunder was running a little late.

A Roman god is a cranky god. Not only did lightning hit my work building yesterday, shorting out our entire network, but I got home to find another lightning strike burned out my cable modem.

I bought two yaks this morning.

J-just in case. *looks around fearfully*

[manic expression]

12. That's quite a shallow way of looking at things

How is the sun not part of God? How is it wrong to worship something that gives us life? Sure, it is made of materials, this is obvious; but so are humans, and there is undenaibly more to our existence than that. Look beyond the materials.

Anyway, what if you had video evidence of some sort of miracle? Would you reconsider your opinion?

(on edit) Also, would you agree that if someone sees smoke, they can assume there is fire?

[SidDithers]

13. Why, have you got some video evidence?...nt

Sid

[manic expression]

14. Well, I was just wondering

would you?

[SidDithers]

19. Most definately....

And if you you had a pink and purple elephant, it would most certainly change my opinion of whether there is such a thing as a pink and purple elephant. But, as the saying goes, if Ifs and Buts were Candy and Nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

What you've got is a damn big IF.

Sid

[manic expression]

20. Short answer:

see post #15

[manic expression]

15. And to answer your question:

http://www.milkmiracle.com/

[SidDithers]

21. If you can replicate it, it's not really a miracle, right?...

Our staff photographer K.K. Laskar held a spoonful of milk to the mouth of a clay statue of Ganesha. Sure enough, within a minute or so, the spoon emptied. He then repeated the experiment, this time with a spoonful of water held against the spout of an ordinary plastic jug. The water too disappeared, although a few seconds slower than the milk.

Laskar, a student of physics, explained the phenomenon as being a combination of surface tension, capillary action and syphoning. It can be easily replicated, he said, with clay or stone images or even plastic and metal jugs with a snout.

When the surface of the liquid touches the protruding tip of any surface, capillary action lifts the liquid, with the surface of the idol or any other object acting as the larger end of syphon. The surface tension allows the liquid to flow freely in a particular direction. This explanation was confirmed by the various scientists we spoke to.

In fact, two teams of scientists visited various temples in New Delhi and found no evidence to support the widespread belief about some idols sudden love for milk.

"It is a hoax," said Biman Basu, a scientist at the Publication and Information Directorate of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Mr Basu and a team from the laboratory visited three temples in central Delhi.

"When the spoonful of milk is offered horizontally, nothing happens," Mr Basu said. "Only when the spoon is tilted does it empty."'

http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/leisure/trivia/ganapati-milk.html

Sid

[manic expression]

25. Oh, right

Too bad it can't really be replicated. The exact statues to which it was happening on that day ceased to take milk. Explain that. In regards to capillary action, most deities are carved out of solid stone or cast metal. There is no way the statue could hold any liquid (besides not even one spoonful in the trunk's small notch), and there was no milk seen coming out of the deities.

That experiment is worthless because it used a CLAY statue. Even ignoring this, it was absorbed over a minute or so, when the actual happenings can clearly be seen taking milk MUCH faster than that.

[SidDithers]

33. You obviously didn't read the link I posted....

more from the same link:

It was also noticed that the idols did not retain the milk they were supposed to have drunk. Behind some of the temples, our photographers took pictures of buckets being filled by the milk flowing imperceptibly down the idols and emptying out through channels travelling to the backyards.

The reason for this, according to one scientist, is that most Ganesh idols in north Indian cities are made of white marble. Due to milk's low surface tension, it flows down the idol in such a thin film that it is not easily visible against the marble.

In fact, scientists from the National Council of Science and Technology Communication -- the government's wing to popularise science -- coloured the milk and saw it flow down the side of an idol. Mr Jagdesh Chandra and Mr Manoj Patariya of the Council also called the reports about miracles a "hoax".

emphasis added

If you believe that Indian statues drinking milk is a miracle, knock yourself out. Given what I've read, and what I know, I don't.

I don't even think it's a hoax, just an interesting physical phenomenon that people misinterpret because they don't understand the mechanics of it.

In the meantime, enjoy the candy and nuts.

Sid

[manic expression]

39. More holes...

the statues absorbed cartons upon cartons of milk. Nothing was seen on the statues. If it flowed down the idols people would have seen something on the floor.

Would it be easier to see milk on this?


What you've read is petty and insufficient IMO. They don't (and can't) explain what happened.

[SidDithers]

40. Alright, I tried...

enjoy life in woo-woo land.

Sid

[manic expression]

42. I'm not the one using bad evidence

so are you refusing to address my comments?

Also, another non-white marble statue taking milk:

[immoderate]

34. Why does a statue need milk?

:popcorn:

--IMM

[lazarus]

23. LOL

Capillary action, anyone?

Or, how about coasters?

Thirstystone Coasters are cut from the finest, most absorbent sandstone found in the Western United States. The unusual nature of the porous sandstone literally absorbs messy drips from beverages without leaking onto furniture and, with proper care, will not stick to the bottom of your glass, bottle, can, etc. when you pick up your drink. Thirstystone Coasters will not lose the ability to absorb over time, will not warp with use, and are stain resistant.

[manic expression]

26. See post #25 n/t

[lazarus]

55. Okay

got video of a statue taking milk, then stopping? Can anyone get close enough to the statue to determine the chemical and structural makeup, or just believers?

And why would a god or supernatural being decide to make him/her/itself known by having statues drink milk? :wtf:

[manic expression]

96. OK...

there are videos of many statues (from all around the world) taking milk for a certain period of time, and then stopping. Statues of different material, structure and so on. However, most of these statues are made out of cast metal, solid stone or marble. This cannot absorb any liquid. There are no places where liquid could build up (aside from a tiny notch in the tip of the trunk, which can hold not even one spoonful...the statues took a very large amount).

After all, such an occurance has never been replicated since.

I have no idea why, and I would be arrogant to say that I did. I have my own opinions about it, but that's not really significant in regards to WHAT happened, just WHY it happened (although that is only my own thoughts and nothing more).

[salvorhardin]

139. Very cool!

Can I get one shaped like Ganesh?

[Zhade]

77. Yeah...that's not evidence, sorry.

NT!

[manic expression]

100. How so?

there is video evidence, no?

[Zhade]

109. Others have already expressed why not.

I agree with their conclusions.

[manic expression]

113. What? You mean those horribly wrong

explanations?

Please specify which reasons you mean, since I've gotten everything from a magic trick to a bogus scenario of capillary action, not to mention an "experiment" using a statue of a material that almost all of the statues were NOT made out of.

[Zhade]

115. How do we know the statue wasn't tampered with beforehand?

How do we know the material it's made of isn't porous, then absorbed enough liquid to be full?

I mean, seriously. It's not proof. Believe it is if you like, but it just isn't - and those "horribly wrong" posts were actually far more insightful and probable explanations than "some supernatural force caused it to happen".

I mean, shit, you don't think these things are faked every day by charlatans?

[manic expression]

118. I'm sorry, I haven't explained it well enough

it wasn't ONE statue, it was MANY statues, in Asia, Africa, Europe and America, all at the same period of time. They were made of many different materials, but most are made out of either cast metal, solid stone or marble. These materials cannot absorb liquid at all. The only place where liquid could possibly collect would be the notch at the tip of the trunk that can hold not even one spoonful (and they took LOTS of milk). Those explanations are not correct at all when looking at what actually happened.

It couldn't have been faked, and it hasn't been replicated since.

[Zhade]

125. And every single instance was recorded?

The videos were untampered? Date and time-stamped?

[manic expression]

131. Look at the videos yourself

not every single instance of course, but MANY instances. That's more than sufficient. No, they were not tampered. They all show the same thing happening in different places.

[Zhade]

135. So you're positive they weren't tampered with?

You know the chain-of-custody for the tapes? You know for a fact that the statues weren't tampered with? That this wasn't faked? That those who DIDN'T tape the alleged events aren't lying?

Your 'evidence' remains unconvincing.

[manic expression]

143. Yes...

because many cameras, many tapes from many news stations around the world captured the same thing.

Your pitiful arguments are far from convincing.

(on edit) Why would those "tampered" statues completely stop taking milk in the same way after that day? Wouldn't the tampering remain the same? There's a lot of holes in that argument, way too many holes.

(edited: less aggressive)

[dwckabal]

168. Why would they have cameras

all recording these statues on the same day around the world? Was there some sort of announcement that a miracle was going to occur?

Why would those "tampered" statues completely stop taking milk in the same way after that day?

Why indeed?

To avoid detection of the mechanism being used to siphon the milk?

Just a guess.

[manic expression]

171. People videotaped it

after either finding out about it locally or hearing it from somewhere else, trying it, and videotaping what they saw. Again, this happened in many, many, many places.

Those same statues ceased to behave in the same way, simultaneously. They did not act in the same way after that time period whatsoever, and so there was no effort to "avoid" anything.

Your guess is appreciated.

[Arianrhod]

156. How do you know the videos show genuine behavior?

Do you believe that Luke Skywalker actually flies around the Universe in an X-Wing fighter?

Visual storage devices are so easily tampered with today that a videotape is not, IMO, evidence of anything at all. Robin Williams did the same trick way back in the 80s, on Mork and Mindy. I have it on videotape.

I need more than what you're offering, please.

[manic expression]

160. Because many, many videos

some from news stations around the world, show the same thing happening at the same time, without any communication or cooperation between one another. This didn't happen in India only, but in Africa, Europe, America and East Asia as well.

It's not A videotape, it is MANY videotapes, showing the same thing.

[Arianrhod]

174. I can find nothing on Google about multiple videos.

I'll accept your statement that many were taken, just for the sake of argument. But I will point out that stating there were many videos does not, in itself, rule out the possibility that the ones made public were tampered with. Especially since news organizations are quick to latch onto "miracles" like Virgin sightings and such--almost all of which are denied by the Catholic Church itself. The media will do anything to make a buck.

Meanwhile, according to the link posted above from the India Times, the event was not simply debunked by scientists, but also by magicians, at least one of whom claimed to have performed that trick many times himself. This fact should at least make you skeptical.

So please answer two more questions--and a follow-up:

1. Why didn't ALL the statues drink the milk, and why did many of those which did, drink only a small amount instead of all of it?

2. Are you so convinced that this is true that you are now a worshiper of Ganesha? If not, why not?

Thanks.

[manic expression]

175. Here:

You can see the countries where this occured (the last graphic on the page). Also, the video on this site uses multiple videos: http://www.milkmiracle.com/html/miracle.html#Video

The scientific explanations fall way short. Capillary action, among other theories, does not adequately explain what happened (I've already addressed this in depth). Also, no such feat has been replicated since, and the very same statues that were acting in this way ceased to do so at the same time.

I don't trust the word of magicians. However, even if one can make the same feat, with one statue, one cannot not with many, at the same time, in many places, with the same statues ceasing to take milk after a certain amount of time.

I have nothing against skepticism.

1.) If you look at those pictures, you'll see regular statues that people just got out because they heard about it doing the same thing. It wasn't a certain, exclusive number of statues that took it.

2.) Not primarily, no. I don't expect people (and wouldn't want them) to drop what they're doing and join the Ganesha sect (or Hinduism, or Sikhism, or Islam, or Zoroastrianism...). This is merely evidence that there is more to the universe. As I've said before, truth is not confined.

Thanks.

[Arianrhod]

181. I think you misunderstood. Answer #1 doesn't address my question.

Every article I could find on Google stated that there were many statues that didn't take the milk--some of them in temples. They also stated that not all the statues drank all the milk in the offering. They also stated that those that did drink didn't do it consistently. Some took many spoonfuls; some took only a little; some took none at all; some took milk sporadically. The articles also stated that the same effect could be reproduced using non-idols, such as plastic watering cans.

This sounds to me like some natural phenomenon, in which liquid uptake slowed and stopped as the material became saturated, and in which some materials wouldn't absorb liquid at all.

As a pagan, I'm well aware that there is more to the world than most people wish to believe. However, I also understand that there is a limitation to human capabilities, so that I think we need to be extremely careful about what we accept as true. As Carl Sagan used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Personally, I see nothing extraordinary happening here. (In fact, I've experienced much stranger things on my own! :) )

Thanks for the conversation. It was interesting.

[manic expression]

183. I never claimed as much

I have stated before that not every case took milk, but enough did to both make tampering nearly impossible (and completely improbable in every way) and suggest something out of the ordinary.

The inconsistency of some statues could actually prove my case more than anything else. Inconsistent behavior would make tampering impossible, because the behavior would have to be efficient. Inconsistent behavior would disprove any scientific debunking, because if secular explanation worked, those statues would not have started, stopped, and started again to act in the same way.

The plastic watering cans are completely different, as they have a place to hold their liquid, whereas the statues did not (except for a small notch in the trunk that could hold not even one spoonful).

The materials that the statues were made out of cannot absorb liquid (as in cast metal, marble and solid stone). If you try to do the same thing with a similar statue now, the same thing will not happen.

I do think we should be careful about what we believe. However, I've seen and heard nothing that gives me any real doubt on what happened.

Galileo didn't need extraordinary evidence when he said all objects fall at the same speed. He merely demonstrated it.

Thanks for your comments and the way you went about them.

[PassingFair]

178. There are video's of David Copperfield making the

Statue of Liberty disappear, too.
Also of "UFO's" Check out the Amazing Randi's take on the "Milk Drinkers" and other wild claims:

Brown found that milk offered to Nandi (that's Lord Shiva's personal
cow, in case you're not up on this mythology) was just running
down the chin of the 18-inch-high marble bovine, and mixing with
the water of the running fountain below the figure. At another
location, an apparently ceramic figure of the Elephant Man was
being fed by adoring attendants who poured the milk into his trunk
from teaspoons. Says Brown:

Yet at the same time, I couldn't help notice that
Ganesh stood on a shining metal tray in a
puddle of milk, and as the teaspoon emptied,
the milk puddle inexorably grew.

Reporter Brown displeased a worshiper with his close attention to
this detail. She said to him,

There is probably an explanation, but there is
probably also a divine force coming in.

That woman should be on O.J. Simpson's team. More here:

http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1995/0027.html

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

51. I'd call it pragmatic,

[manic expression]

101. Call it what you want,

I don't think you're looking at the full picture. Just my opinion.

[porphyrian]

52. "How is the sun not part of God?"

How are you not the belly button of a giant invisible flying elephant? That precisely illustrates the point; there can be no logical discussion about a God or gods because there is no way to prove or disprove their existance. Does that mean that there is no God (or gods, or giant invisible flying elephant of which you are the belly button)? No. But logic cannot be employed to prove their existance as the claim is irrational and baseless.

Faith is belief DESPITE any logical proof, even despite proof to the contrary. It has nothing to do with science or logic.

[manic expression]

102. Really....

Faith is belief in something more. To say that it is without proof or logic is as arrogant as it is false.

The Sun is part of us, part of the universe. Just as everything is ultimately neutrons, electrons and protons in a material sense, so is everything the same in the highest and truest sense.

Can I prove divinity? I can point to evidence of the way of existence. It is as if I point to smoke, can you assume there is fire?

For instance, I have claimed that there is a deeper connection between all beings. I forget the law, but it has been scientifically accepted that everything in the universe has an attraction to everything else, however small. This is perhaps a physical parallel, if you will, of the higher truth that all things are connected.

How am I not the belly button? Because I can see what I am in the physical sense. If you would like to call me that, do as you wish, but it doesn't change the truth of things.

[porphyrian]

116. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Starting with a personal attack (calling me arrogant and wrong) doesn't support your argument. Nor does asserting that "the Sun is part of us." Your unshakable FAITH that what you claim is true has nothing to do with LOGIC, despite your use of scientific terminology.

[manic expression]

119. Sorry, but...

it wasn't a personal attack, I was criticizing your opinions that I think are incorrect. There is a difference (and you did the same thing I did).

I have used scientifically proven truths to show reality on a higher level. The same truths are pervasive throughout physical, mental, emotional, subliminal and spiritual levels. I have used logic and reason, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

[porphyrian]

123. ...

"...it wasn't a personal attack, I was criticizing your opinions that I think are incorrect. There is a difference (and you did the same thing I did)."

Sorry, you're wrong again. You said that my opinion was arrogant and false. Merely saying that you are wrong is not the same thing, especially when preceded by the word "sorry."


"I have used scientifically proven truths to show reality on a higher level. The same truths are pervasive throughout physical, mental, emotional, subliminal and spiritual levels.

You have used scientific jargon in an attempt to equate what you believe in faith with logic and real science. Poetic? Yes, but not proof that your claims are truth. Logic must be supported by fact, not just presented in the same sentence with it.


"I have used logic and reason, but you refuse to acknowledge that."

Wrong, and yes, I do refuse to acknowledge that you have used logic and reason.

[manic expression]

124. No, that's not it again

I was saying your OPINION was arrogant and false. You misconstrued it as a personal attack.

Are you saying that truth is confined? I have provided evidence which supports the fact that there is more to existence. I did not just present it in the same sentence, I presented the truth as one whole truth, that which it is.

So far, you have not given any reasons for WHY you think I'm wrong. Only that since I'm poetic, and that my evidence does not prove my conclusions, which it does.

Yes, I have used logic and reason; you need to address my specific examples and show me why they do not work.

[Zhade]

127. BZZT, you lose.

One's OPINION cannot be false.

Game, set, match.

[manic expression]

129. Are you serious?

I know someone who's opinion is that Saddam put all his WMD's on a ship and we're tracking it to see what terrorists are gonna take it.... How is that not wrong?

Back to the drawing board you go...again.

[Zhade]

133. No, that's someone being wrong on the FACTS.

It's their OPINION, perhaps, that Hussein was a bad man (which I'd agree with), but stating these incorrect 'facts' are not their opinion, but their mistaken belief.

Try again.

[manic expression]

144. And my facts are correct...

the conclusions I've made from them are also valid. However, it seems that you are delusional and desperate (the tapes were tampered with! :eyes:).

I don't need to try, I've already expressed my logical ideas...you have failed to do the same.

[porphyrian]

141. [sigh]

"I was saying your OPINION was arrogant and false. You misconstrued it as a personal attack."

What is more personal than calling someone's opinion arrogant? That is a personal attack. Also, by definition, an opinion cannot be false.


"Are you saying that truth is confined?"

No, I am saying that logic is defined, and that you don't understand that definition.


"I have provided evidence which supports the fact that there is more to existence."

No, you haven't. You have made an unsupportable claim. That is the realm of faith, not logic or science.


"I did not just present it in the same sentence, I presented the truth as one whole truth, that which it is."

I'm sorry, you're mistaken. I mean, you can choose to believe whatever you want, but your assertions are not logic-based, they are faith-based.


"So far, you have not given any reasons for WHY you think I'm wrong."

That, in itself, is wrong. I am continually repeating why I think you're wrong, you just won't hear it.


"Only that since I'm poetic, and that my evidence does not prove my conclusions, which it does."

Sorry, you're wrong.


"Yes, I have used logic and reason; you need to address my specific examples and show me why they do not work."

O.K.

1) How is the sun not part of God? - This is not a logical statement. The existance of a God (or gods, or invisible flying elephants) cannot be proven or disproven, and is not a given, which the question as written implies. If this question is meant to prove the existance of a God, which I believe was your intent, then it is a circular argument; using God as evidence that God exists.

2) How is it wrong to worship something that gives us life? - Many children do worship their parents, but usually grow out of it once they realize they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In the context of proving the existance of a God, etc., it is again assuming that there is a God to worship in the first place, thus isn't very scientific at all and again employs circular logic.

3) Sure, it is made of materials, this is obvious; but so are humans, and there is undenaibly more to our existence than that. - Here, you begin with a factual statement (about materials), but then attempt to say that because this first part is true, that your unsupported assertion that there is "undenaibly more to our existence" is also true, which is not logical at all, nor is it scientific.

4) Look beyond the materials. - Look up logic in a dictionary. Nevermind, I'll do it for you:

log·ic n. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

5) Anyway, what if you had video evidence of some sort of miracle? Would you reconsider your opinion? - These are the most logical and lucid of your questions thus far. However, what constitutes a miracle is relative to the observer and, again, has little to do with logic. You are still in the realm of faith.

6) (on edit) Also, would you agree that if someone sees smoke, they can assume there is fire? - The key word here is "assume," a concept which you appear to be intimately familiar with. "Logic," however, you will need to work on.

[manic expression]

146. You're thinking I'm coming from a place I'm not

A personal attack: "YOU are arrogant"
A criticism of opinion: "Your OPINIONS are arrogant"

There is a difference, no?

My assertions are based off of logic and scientific theory (I've cited Newton's 2nd Law of Motion, Newton's Law of Universal Attraction). That's not faith.

1.) I'm not pointing to an all-powerful being...I'm saying that everything is ultimately equal and eternal. That is the "God" I'm talking about.

2.) The Sun provides for us, gives us life itself. Is it wrong to be thankful for this? That is prayer, and it is not superstitious. When we outgrow our dependence on The Sun like children outgrow dependence on their parents, perhaps you'd have half of an argument, but you don't.

3.) There is NOTHING more to existence than materials? What are your thoughts? What are your emotions? Right, I thought so.

4.) If you cannot look beyond the materials, then why are you thinking? Then there are no morals, there should be no empathy. The logic that there is more to life than what one can see is quite sound, the definition does nothing to help your arguments.

5.) "Miracle" is subjective, but perhaps you could look at the dictionary for that? The occurrences with the milk was what I was referring to...does that constitute an "alleged" miracle, at the very least?

6.) It is logical to assume there is fire when one sees smoke. When one sees the truth of the world through observation (read: science), these same truths are pervasive throughout all levels of existence.

Nevertheless, thank you for addressing my arguments in such a fashion.

[porphyrian]

154. You are definitely wrong.

I am almost embarrassed for you, and should probably just let it go, but I can't.

Opinions are beliefs held by an individual that are not necessarily factual. Regardless, they are beliefs held by an individual. Insulting someone's beliefs is offensive to the person holding the opinion, despite your refusing to accept that.

Now, your itemized list:

1) "I'm not pointing to an all-powerful being...I'm saying that everything is ultimately equal and eternal. That is the "God" I'm talking about."

Well, that's a very interesting opinion you have there, but it is a baseless assertion, and not a logical argument. In fact, empirical data suggests that everything is not ultimately equal and eternal.

2) "The Sun provides for us, gives us life itself. Is it wrong to be thankful for this? That is prayer, and it is not superstitious. When we outgrow our dependence on The Sun like children outgrow dependence on their parents, perhaps you'd have half of an argument, but you don't."

The sun enables life, but it is only one element of a complex web of inter-related factors occurring simultaneously in space-time which give us life, not the least of which is our parents having unprotected sex. Prayer is superstitious, by the way, not that there is anything wrong with doing it. Also, I think my analogy was better than yours, so you might want to refrain from saying that I'm the one who has no argument.

3) "There is NOTHING more to existence than materials? What are your thoughts? What are your emotions? Right, I thought so."

Who said that? I said that that was the only logical part of your argument. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote and then try again.

4) "If you cannot look beyond the materials, then why are you thinking? Then there are no morals, there should be no empathy. The logic that there is more to life than what one can see is quite sound, the definition does nothing to help your arguments."

Again, you are making assumptions based on incorrect data. Try reading my previous post again.

5) ""Miracle" is subjective, but perhaps you could look at the dictionary for that? The occurrences with the milk was what I was referring to...does that constitute an "alleged" miracle, at the very least?"

I'm not sure what you are talking about, possibly some other thread that I didn't read, but I still hold to my original statement.

6) "It is logical to assume there is fire when one sees smoke. When one sees the truth of the world through observation (read: science), these same truths are pervasive throughout all levels of existence."

Your example is an oversimplification based on assumption. How do you know that the "smoke" is really smoke merely by seeing it? It could be steam or mist. It could be a cloud of dust. You posed the question to get the reader to agree with you, after which you made a baseless assertion, trying to connect the two in the minds of the reader as "undenaible truth." It's a con game. Our government has been using it for years. If you want a greater effect, try it on conservatives. They're apparently very gullible.

[Zhade]

155. Well, plus the fact that thoughts and emotions are chemical in nature.

Another great post - especially the final paragraph (which was my whole point about dry ice, which also gives off smoke).

[manic expression]

158. You feel the way you want to feel

I appreciate your consideration, but I believe it is misled.

1.) Are you familiar with the Theory of Conservation of Energy/Matter? This is pretty much exactly the same as the idea that individuals are eternal, for just as energy passes into a new form, and is not lost; so too do people pass into new lives.

And yes, energy IS eternal (and so is everything else).

2.) So you would refuse to offer your respects to that which contributes to YOUR life? People offer respect to their parents, people offer respect to the animals/plants they eat, people offer respect to The Sun. This is nothing wrong, and it only acknoledges what is important in this world.

3/4.) I was tired.

5.) You said miracle was subjective, and I asked you to get a dictionary for it. Look downthread (or somewhere on this thread), and you'll see what I'm talking about.

6.) You know the difference between smoke and mist and steam, or any other similar cloud. My assertions have used evidence which points to my conclusion. I am expressing my opinion, so don't get offended if you think I'm trying to convince you of something, because I am.

[porphyrian]

162. OK, this is the last one.

I appreciate that you have made up your mind, and that nothing I say can change it. However, from my perspective, you are the one who is misled or misunderstanding what's going on. So, I'll address your concerns one last time, but I feel like it's not really worth pursuing further.

1) Yes. It is often used incorrectly by non-scientists in the same manner which you are attempting to use it. The law only applies to an isolated system, and your use of it assumes that we are contained within an isolated system. Again, you are attempting to build an argument based on assumptions rather than facts.

2) The sun does not care if I respect it or not. In fact, it will continue its nuclear reaction for thousands of years after I am dead and probably forgotten. If the idea of it bothers you, I'm sorry, but it doesn't bother me at all. That doesn't change the fact that prayer is neither necessary nor mandatory.

3)/4) Get some rest.

5) Miracles are subjective, and the concept is based on faith, not on fact. If you refuse to believe this, that's your right, but you're wrong.

6) The only thing you've convinced me of is that you're willing to use deceptive practices to try to prove faith-based assumptions by associating them with logic and science. It is dishonest, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[manic expression]

163. Fine...

I'm just arguing my opinion, and what you've argued doesn't fly with me. I don't expect you to change your opinion, either.

1.) The law can be applied to just about anything. Try it. It works. Nothing is isolated, it is all the same in the end. Look at the 2nd Law of Motion: Empires conquer, and then fall. Actions have reactions, this is apparent everywhere. Truth has no confinement.

2.) Prayer is not necessary, but neither is respect of parents or basic respect of other people. However, it is wrong to give others no respect, and I intend to respect that which is in this world with me.

3/4.) I did, thank you.

5.) Look in the dictionary, that is not quite subjective.

6.) I'm not using deception, but merely pointing to the smoke...there is fire.

I enjoyed this discussion, and if you do not wish to continue, that is fine. I didn't take anything personal, and I hope I wasn't rude. Thank you.

[Zhade]

153. Great post.

Very reasoned, very patient, very clear. Heck, I learned something from it!

[leftofthedial]

16. that's just a theory

many people reject the notion that the apple will always do any such thing. That's why we at NotReallyReligiousNutJobs--NoReally.org have developed Intelligent Falling Facilitator, or IFF. According to this new concept, which deserves to be taught in schools instead of the patently ridiculous theory of "gravity," things appear to "fall" only because an invisible, infinitely powerful being (known as the falling facilitator) causes them to "fall."

It is the only possible explanation.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

17. ROTFLMAO

:rofl:

[tblue37]

29. Oh, man--

This needs to be spread around!

[WillyT]

172. LOL !!! - That's A Classic !!!

:rofl::hi::rofl:

[kliljedahl]

18. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is gonna get you for that

http://www.venganza.org


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[ArkDem]

22. What if you were in a parachute over the middle of the Pacfic Ocean?

[StayOutTheBushes]

24. What if you are orbiting in the space shuttle.

[KittyWampus]

28. Well, For 1000's Of Years If You Jumped Off Cliffs With Wings, You'd Die

that is, until someone unlocked Nature's Laws of Aerodynamics.

And your lack of comprehension as to what the "gods" represent is appalling... but typical of the average DU'er.

They are Symbols.

They are Archetypes.

There's more to the World than Physical Reality.

And the Mental and Spiritual World obviously intimidates many DU'ers.

Unfortunately, some in the GOP & Corporate world aren't intimidated and use and abuse Symbolic language and Archetypes to manipulate others into doing dreadful things.

[RandomKoolzip]

30. "And the Mental and Spiritual World obviously intimidates many DU'ers."

Well, "mental" and "spiritual" are two completely different things.

I don't believe in the "spiritual" world. It's not that I'm intimidated by it, it's just that it doesn't strike any chords of recognition in my psyche and I just don't have the capacity for "faith" that others seem to have boundless reserves of...call it cynicism if you want. I just cannot believe in a deity.

The "mental" world, however, is something I see, hear, smell, touch and taste every minute of the day, so it's quite believable and not at all intimidating, either.

[manic expression]

31. You use only your senses

What of that which is beyond what you can merely touch. Why is it that people feel very intimate attachments to others? For instance, mothers who had sons in Vietnam immediately knew when their son was killed. This points to the fact that existence is more than physical and mental.

Look around you, "God" is within everything. I see no difference between the simplest sponge, myself or any other entity in this world. We are all one in the end. Look at the similarities between you, a friend, any animal, even a mountain. Existence is pervasive throughout and within everything, it is eternal. That is what one should believe in. That is what one should experience.

If you take five bottles, all different colors, and put the cap on, it doesn't change the fact that the air in all five are the same, and are all around them. The appearance may be different, but in truth, they are really the same.

If one sees smoke, one knows that there is fire.

You say that you cannot believe in a deity...why not believe in yourself? It's really the same in the end.

[RandomKoolzip]

32. "mothers who had sons in Vietnam immediately knew....."

They did?!

I DO believe in myself. That's why I'm confident enough to say that I haven't witnessed anything paranormal or experienced any kind of "spiritual" epiphany in my entire life and I'm okay with that.

A lot of people seem to hunger for some kind of spiritual connection, or a direct line to divinity, or a cancelled ticket to Death, or they seem to want to will the supernatural into existence by the sheer force of their desire to access the unknown. I never have. It's just a personal quirk of mine, I suppose.

James Randi makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the Bible, the Necronomicon, the Koran, and all of Shirley Maclaine's books combined. YMMV.

[manic expression]

37. That's good.

Be confident in yourself. However one does not need to experience anything paranormal to know that there is more to existence than physical and mental.

People should not look for some awesome display of divinity: I think it happens all the time! One must only look outside to see God. One can look in a mirror and see the physical manifestation of God. Look at a friend and see "God" in a physical form (remember the bottles example). Furthermore, I think that if someone sees smoke, there is no need to see the fire to believe it.

Whatever makes sense to YOU, live your life the way you think you should. I feel that you will reach the highest level of understanding in regards to everything (read: "God") with that. If you don't want to be religious, who am I to question that (although I'll respond to your posts....)? As long as you are one with what you think you should do, that is just as good as anything else (just think of our beliefs as the bottles...different colors, but they're filled with air in the end).

By the way, I use "God" rather reluctantly, when I say "God", I mean everything and everyone.

[Zhade]

80. "However one does not need to experience anything paranormal to know..."

Repectfully, you don't KNOW there is more. You believe and suspect there is, but you don't actually know.

If you knew, you'd be able to provide objective evidence of it. As it is, perhaps your 'knowledge' is insanity, or egoism, or chemical imbalances in the brain.

I am NOT calling you insane or egotistical. I am, however, pointing out that subjective experiences do not count as evidence.

There was a DUer by the name of Stunster, now banned, who continually insisted that his 'personal experiences' with 'god' somehow proved god exists. Nope. Doesn't work that way.

[manic expression]

95. First,

if I see smoke, I know there is fire. If you look at evidence from what is physically apparent (the cycle of nature, etc...), the truths that are pervasive throughout all existence can be known. For instance, Newton's Second Law of Motion states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is the same for ANYTHING, not just motion. Empires conquer, and then are conquered. People who are angry seldom find any happiness. Why would such a truth not apply to all levels of reality?

There are different perspectives to one fact, and those perspectives are simply different, not better or worse. I think it is fine to not believe in any divinity. However, I'm just expressing what I believe, as everyone else is.

At any rate, thank you for being respectful.

[immoderate]

35. Mothers who had sons in Vietnam...

would occasionally feel a sense of dread. This is normal. If it does not relate to disaster, it is soon forgotten. If something does actually happen then this is given magical significance.

--IMM

[manic expression]

38. And that connection

should be seen as invalid? The intense relationship between the two individuals only shows how we are all connected in the end. Look beyond (yeah, it's a cliche, but what am I gonna do?). Also, mothers sometimes did "know" when their sons were killed.

[immoderate]

44. I think you missed my point.

These feelings of dread happen to all the mothers all the time. There is no connection with actual events. That only happens when some actual disaster takes place. The vast majority of such feelings are ignored or forgotten when nothing happens.

This is a mechanism that psychics and faith healers depend on. People only remember the "hits" and ignore the vast majority of misses. We call this coincidence.

--IMM

[manic expression]

46. Not all the time...

but there have been testimonies of mothers saying they "knew" when something horrible happened. Feelings of dread are natural, and do show that the connection is very intense, thus not weakening my point.

The mechanism that psychics depend on is stupidity, IMO. Like when a psychic tells someone that the will money they got from their parents are cursed, and that the person should transfer the money to the psychic's account so that s/he can rid it of evil spirits (I'm almost positive this has actually happened).... I think you can guess that the psychic didn't transfer the money back.

[immoderate]

48. I'm not sure I get your point.

Mothers have these feelings of dread, and the vast majority of the time they are wrong. Every once in a while it coincides with an actual catastrophe and then it is valid?

If I predict a disaster every day and nothing happens, I'll be ignored. If one day, years down the road, an actual disaster occurs, some might hail my prescience, but does that give validity to my prediction?

Viz the strong bond formed by partial reinforcement in experimental psychology.

--IMM

[manic expression]

50. No...

The strong bond is very much subliminal, out of the psychological realm.

There are feelings of dread all the time, but there are exceptional cases.

If I lived on the coast, and there are constant tsunami warnings; it does not negate the fact that virtually every animal innately knew when a tsunami was coming and started to vacate the coastal area. Even the fact that animals sometimes go crazy for unknown reasons, that instance is not the same as what I have described above (and what actually happened).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. These "exceptional cases" are deemed exceptional after the fact. (nt)

[manic expression]

64. They are validated, true

but that doesn't mean that they are invalid before confirmation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. Uh...

[manic expression]

70. Try this...

Read it over again, think about it, and then get back to me.

By the way, that's a funny graphic.

[Zhade]

82. And it doesn't mean they are VALID before 'confirmation' either!

NT!

[manic expression]

84. Yes, they are valid

if a person feel something that is actually the correct feeling, it is valid and needs no confirmation to receive validity.

[Zhade]

87. In your opinion, but not proven.

A feeling is a feeling. It does not thus correlate that the one time someone had a bad feeling that matched a bad incident proves such a connection.

It's a fallacy to suggest that coincidence equals proof.

[manic expression]

91. It's not coincidence

It is what someone actually feels. These exceptionally strong convictions about a loved one's fate correlates with the actual happening in the physical realm.

Look at mitosis/meiosis. Sister chromatids find their partner flawlessly. It is not coincidence or "random chance" (because there has NEVER been a case of this NOT happening), but there is a deeper connection that results in the forming of a relationship in the physical sense.

[SidDithers]

92. Has there ever been a case...

of someone experiencing strong convictions about a loved ones fate, and those strong convictions not being correct? Or how about a loved one dying in Vietnam, and the parent being completely surprised? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then the "mother's intuition" cases really are coincidences.

Sid

[manic expression]

94. Well....

I'm not sure...but why not use it for the sake of argument?

Let's say those two cases happened. This could mean many things. Whenever someone is in war, the fate does not have to be mere death. It could be that the son/daughter killed someone, or that they experienced heightened emotions (aka "battle high"), and this was felt by the relative.

Complete surprise could mean that the action simply did not create a palpable reaction in the relative.

Remember, I'm not arguing that it is common for what I said to happen, but it is not impossible, and it does show that there is more to existence between and within everything.

[Zhade]

128. Ahhhh, moving the goalposts - done when someone is losing the argument.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that your personal subjective experiences and beliefs do not equate to objective proof?

Seriously, I don't see why you can't accept that basic truth.

[manic expression]

147. I haven't cited ONE personal experience YET

I think that is projection on your part.

My objective evidence has come from: my use of scientific theory to look at existence on higher levels and the occurrence that no one can adequately explain through secular means only.

(edited: less aggressive first comment)

[Zhade]

106. Maybe we're missing each other's points...

"These exceptionally strong convictions about a loved one's fate correlates with the actual happening in the physical realm."

That may indeed be true, but it does not mean that such happenstance occurrences prove anything more than coincidence.

[manic expression]

108. I doubt

that it is pure coincidence.

(edited: deleted sentence)

[Zhade]

110. Feel free to doubt it all you want.

Your doubt does not constitute proof that it is anything but coincidence.

[manic expression]

111. On the contrary...

There is ample reason to believe that it is NOT coincidence.

And also, your doubt of my doubt does not constitute proof...(let's stop that circle right now)

[Zhade]

112. You just illustrated my point.

"There is ample reason to believe that it is NOT coincidence." (My emphasis added.)

Again, and I cannot fathom how you keep missing this truism, BELIEF does not equal FACT.

"And also, your doubt of my doubt does not constitute proof...(let's stop that circle right now)"

Of course, the burden of proof is on you for making the assertion that there is more to it than coincidence. It is NOT incumbent on me to disprove your belief.

[manic expression]

114. Do you believe in gravity?

"Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

A belief is valid if it is shown to be correct. Using ample reason and evidence, my beliefs are supported by science and logic.

OK, here we go! Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states that all objects are attracted to one another. This is a physical manifestation of the higher truth that all things are the same in the end; that all things are connected.

[Zhade]

117. No, I don't BELIEVE in gravity. I know it to exist.

Scientists have observed and replicated its effects countless times. Belief doesn't enter into it.

Feel free to believe what you wish. That still does not mean what you believe is factually true. If presented without evidence, don't expect others to buy into it.

[manic expression]

120. Again, by definition,

gravity is believed to be true by the scientific community. I'm just using the dictionary here.

If you see smoke, you know (and believe) there is fire.

I've also presented evidence (have you been reading my posts?).

[manic expression]

122. Also, I see that

you've put this in the Atheists and Agnostics group. Good job, putting it somewhere where I can't respond to it. :eyes:

Even though my arguments are still holding up, and yours are not. Will you address my opinions (especially in regards to the scientific theories I've brought up)?

(on edit) And to address those comments you made in that forum: I'm not using personal experience, I've used many forms of evidence, including scientific theories (that have been very much proven).

[Zhade]

126. Sure you have.

You keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night. Meanwhile, those of us who actually rely on evidence will continue to dismiss your 'proof' (which isn't, and has been explained to you more than once).

[manic expression]

132. Except...

you haven't used any evidence. While I have used many forms of evidence to prove my points.

Sorry....

[Zhade]

134. Yes, you've used flawed, incomplete 'evidence'...

...that several others have debunked.

Look, you've lost, you haven't proven what you seem to desperately wish to be true. It happens to everyone. Deal with it.

Or, keep making silly allegations with no objective evidence to back them up, and deal with the derision your assertions rightfully garner. Your call.

[manic expression]

142. Please...

My evidence is valid, and all you've been saying is: "Well, that's not true!"...no mention of why. Funny, you can't even amount an argument....

(on edit: see post #151)

[manic expression]

151. OK, look

I've cited scientific theories.... How is that invalid? I believe the truths that are apparent around us are not confined to the physical realm. That is (basically) all I'm saying.

Every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...that is almost exactly the same as Karma.

Universal Attraction...this shows us how everything is connected in *some* way, but this is evidence for the fact/belief/assertion that everything is ultimately one.

There are a few others...but I think that makes my point.

[dwckabal]

169. Citing scientific theories incorrectly

makes your theory invalid.

You have no proof of anything beyond the physical realm.

Newton's Third law ≠ karma:

Newton: when there exists a force acting on a body A, due to another body B, there exists also a reciprocal force, acting on body B, due to the existence of body A.

karma: sum of all that an individual has once done during many lives and is currently doing. The effects of those deeds actively create present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life. (one of many definitions, depending on whether you are dealing with Hinduism (3 kinds of karma), Buddhism, Jainism, Surat Shabd Yoga (four types of karma), etc, etc.)

Gravity is simply space-time being curved by matter and energy--hardly a way of saying everything is "ultimately one."

You have made no point other than to show that you have no idea how science works or even what it is.

Anecdotes do not make a science.
Scientific language does not make a science.
Bold statements do not make a claim true.
Heresy does not equal correctness.
Rumors do not equal reality.
Unexplained is not inexplicable.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[manic expression]

173. What I have been doing

is observing the way things work in the physical world and applying them to a deeper level. There is nothing wrong with this. Truth is not confined.

Your definition of Karma dances around the issue. It is the idea that actions done, whether in one life or another, will find its way back in an equal way to the individual who did them. Action=reaction. How is this different from Newton's Second Law? Just the medium, nothing else.

No, the fact that EVERYTHING is attracted to EVERYTHING ELSE points to the fact that there is a connection between everything (in both an abstract and realistic sense).

You, my friend, have proved nothing but your inability to grasp ideas and valid comparisons.

If you see smoke, you know there is fire.

[dwckabal]

180. What you are doing

is making metaphysical statements sound scientific, which is certainly NOT science.

Please, define this "deeper level."

I can point to ten different people and get ten different definitions of karma. There is only one definition of Newton's second Law, and it is not "action=reaction."

Everything is not attracted to everything else. And even if it was, that does not indicate that there is a connection between everything.

I grasp ideas perfectly well, and know invalid comparisons when I see them.

Keep repeating your mantra, it seems to have an almost numbing effect on your ability to reason.

[manic expression]

182. Not exactly...

I've been using scientific theories to show the truth that is pervasive within all levels of existence.

Deeper level - a level of existence that is closer to reality, in relation to the physical.

The basic premise of Karma remains the same (perhaps those 10 people could be mistaken...ever think of that?). Newton's Second Law - To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Karma is exactly the same, only with different forms of actions and reactions.

My physics teacher would disagree with you. Check out the Law of Universal Attraction. Everything IS attracted to everything else. This is a parallel to the higher truth that everything is ultimately the same and connected.

Like I thought you would...covering your eyes and claiming there is no light.

[PassingFair]

179. I believe the truths that are apparent around us ...

are not confined to the physical realm. That is (basically) all I'm saying.


OK! Now you're talking I BELIEVE that's what YOU BELIEVE. But you cannot, ever, make it real to someone who does not, any more than someone could con you into believing in that noodly-appendaged spaghetti guy with the pirate dwarfs.

It's late. I must siphon some milk and go to sleep. Dream On!

[manic expression]

184. Again,

YOU "believe" in gravity. Look in the dictionary, "belief" doesn't mean without reason and it doesn't mean wrong.

I have used evidence and reason to illustrate my points.

I believe that you must wake up, and stop dreaming.

[SidDithers]

138. I'll give you one thing...

you're certainly persistant.

However undeniably incorrect you may be, your dogged committment to your indefensible position must be commended.

:toast:

Sid

[manic expression]

148. Well, one nice comment deserves another

You are also persistent.

:toast:

Although I don't know where you got "indefensible position" from, as I've been holding up to the pressure of about 6 posters.

[Zhade]

81. Again, if such bonds exist, science will discover them.

Until then, they remain unproven assertions and beliefs.

[manic expression]

88. And yet no one discovered photons for the longest time

I guess they were just unproven assertions and beliefs. :eyes:

You can easily discover such bonds. Have you ever felt intense feelings for someone, something? If so, that is a facet (perhaps not the entity itself, but that truth which takes form in a new medium) of the common bonds that connect us all.

(by the way, if the parenthesis don't make sense, just ignore them)

[Zhade]

90. I am not an expert on photons, so I cannot address that angle.

I can only state that unproven assertions, made without objective independent evidence, remain unproven assertions, suppositions, beliefs, and allegations.

Sure, I've felt strong emotions, we all do. And there are scientific explanations for that, as I'm sure most of the people on this thread can attest to.

[manic expression]

93. Don't worry about that...

that comment was insignificant, really.

I think someone's emotions are palpable enough to find a conclusion that there is more to existence between and within everything.

Everything in the physical sense has a deeper meaning, a source, if you like. In the same way that we can trace people's actions to their mental thoughts, we can see how the inter-connection of individuals creates strong emotions for a person.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

61. If a kid of mine was in a war...

...I'd feel a sense of dread every 0.00000000000000000000000001 second or so.

[SidDithers]

36. If one sees smoke...

one knows that there exists a cloud of minute airborne particles. Your experience leads you to believe that smoke you see is caused by fire. If someone demonstrates to you that the smoke you see is actually a result of something else - outgassing from incompatible chemicals mixing, water vapour cooling, etc - then you would have to rethink your certainty that smoke = fire.

It's the same with miracles. My certainty is that I haven't yet seen one that can't be simply explained by a known physical process. If (there's that big IF again) one occurs that can't be explained (usually by someone with much more knowledge than li'l ol' me), then I'll have to re-evaluate my experience that I've not yet seen a miracle.

Sid

[manic expression]

43. However,

water vapor cooling, chemicals mixing (which would create a reaction) are all types of reactions that are very much like fires. You would be able to tell the difference between water vapor, chemicals and an actual fire, by the way, and in this way one could see what the source is by observing the reaction (fire).

Actually, can YOU show me that smoke does not necessarily mean a fire (not just the quintessential "fire", but this type of reaction)?

[SidDithers]

47. I've already shown you that statues don't drink milk...

and we both saw how that turned out. I have the feeling that whatever anyone shows you, you'll find a way to dismiss it, or somehow move the goal posts again.

Sid

[manic expression]

49. Really?

I wasn't aware that "I tried" proves you right.

I've debunked every one of your pieces of false evidence. Your claims that I'm "moving the goalposts" are completely ridiculous, I'm merely frustrating your insufficient arguments.

Although, you are right in one way: statues DON'T drink milk...they DID drink milk.

[RandomKoolzip]

54. Statues can't drink milk.

Because they're, um, statues. Y'know, like they lack the muscles and organs necessary for the act of drinking.

PLEASE check out James Randi's site sometime. As a former magician, he knows all the tricks that psychic charlatans use to put one over on their audiences.

[manic expression]

65. Sorry...

they did.

Why? I have no idea, but scientific explanations fall far short.

The funny thing is that there was no magician, and the same thing happened all around the world by itslef...yeah, just like a magic trick. :sarcasm:

[immoderate]

58. I ask again, why does a statue drink milk?

What is the message here? Why don't they eat organic whole wheat bagels? Is it only some statues that have this propensity for cow juice? Can Venus deMilo drink milk (if you hold the bottle for her?)

Do statues get gas from metabolising dairy products. Would ice cream please them more? So many questions. So few answers.

--IMM

[manic expression]

67. And the answers are...

I don't really know. However, you can't dispute the fact that it happened, so why don't you start by acknowledging that, and then we can get somewhere.

Why does a statue drink milk? No idea, but they did.

What is the message here? Something very special happened that hasn't been reproduced since.

Why don't they eat organic whole wheat bagels? No idea, but they didn't.

Is it only that some statues that have this propensity for cow juice? They really don't but on that day, many similar statues did.

Can Venus deMilo drink milk (if you hold the bottle for her?)? I don't know. It hasn't happened, so probably not.

Do statues get gas from metabolizing dairy products? No, they don't.

Would ice cream please them more? Well, milk DOESN'T please them right now. On that day, I don't know if it would.

There's some answers to you pathetic questions. Care to dance some more?

[RandomKoolzip]

71. I can't dispute that it happened?

Why not? I didn't see it happen, and it's scientifically impossible that it could have happened. So it didn't happen.

There are dozens of explanations upthread for this alleged incident.

My brother and my father once saw a UFO. Eight of my dad's friends saw it as well. IT was a string of colored lights in the sky, revolving, that sped away at top speed after hovering over our house for over twenty minutes.

Are there aliens from other planets? No. Are UFO's piloted by superintelligent beings? No.

Do I doubt that my dad and my brother and eight other people saw something strange? No. But it wasn't an alien spacecraft, because they don't exist.

[manic expression]

75. Oh, so video cameras are trying to deceive us

OK, all the stuff you see on TV never happened. Please, your claims are laughable.

All those explanations are horribly inadequate. I've discussed their shortcomings upthread as well.

Do you have video evidence of what they saw? Oh, I see.

[immoderate]

72. Pathetic?

Actually I prefer humor to pathos to illustrate my points.

Do you believe that people can be fooled?

--IMM

[manic expression]

76. How charming of you...

but it doesn't help prove your point.

To answer your question: Yes, and I also believe people can deny the obvious.

[immoderate]

98. No, but I eschew mischaracterization.

Would you assert that no one has ever been fooled by a fake "miracle?"

I take it you're saying that the statues drinking milk are "obviously" a true miracle, and could not possibly have been faked.

--IMM

[manic expression]

99. Faked?

by whom? It occurred in Europe, Asia, Africa and America at the same time. It was caught on countless videotapes in many locations. How in the world could such a thing ever be faked?

Your statements are ludicrous.

[Zhade]

137. You're kidding, right?

You honestly don't see how it could be easily faked?

A group of people who are dispersed to different venues...

...holes drilled in the statues...

...edited videotapes...

I mean, is that what happened? Don't know enough about the case to say one way or the other. Could it be done? Most assuredly, and with little difficulty.

The insistence that this COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE FAKED!!!1!1!! is what's truly ludicrous about this conversation.

[manic expression]

149. Somehow, I doubt that

a group of unidentified people, gaining access to almost every Ganesh statue on the face of the planet, tampering with countless objects without the work being detected for the past 10 years since (or so), editing videotapes from countless news stations around the world.

It's really not possible.

(edited: I was harsh, sorry)

[Zhade]

136. I recall a special on fakirs...

...wherein a guru 'mysteriously' levitated.

Turned out he was sitting on a specially-designed seat-on-a-pole, where the portion in the ground was concealed as a walking-stick the guru 'held' in front of him.

A videotape 'showed' the 'miracle' - until the man stood up and revealed the truth.

[manic expression]

150. That's quite interesting

however, no one could possibly mess with so many statues without someone finding out about it. No one could possibly tamper with the countless tapes from news agencies.

That explanation doesn't fly.

(edited: I was rude again)

[Zhade]

152. Sure, FRAUD could never happen...

...but statues can miraculously drink milk.

:rofl:

Give me a BREAK already. It's been explained - capillary action (I am no expert on that, of course, but those who explained it as thus have made a much better case than you have, I'm afraid).

[manic expression]

159. Look at the insufficient explanation yourself

Capillary action would not work. First of all, it can't be replicated. Secondly, the statues didn't have any milk coming out of them, which is what had to happen if it was capillary action. Also, many of the statues provide a color of sharp contrast to milk, and so the milk would have been visible on the statues if capillary action was what happened.

At any rate, the widespread occurrences have not been emulated whatsoever, and so capillary action cannot explain it, since it would happen again.

[Zhade]

164. I disagree, and think your explanation doesn't hold weight.

It's been debunked to my satisfaction. That's the end of it for me.

[manic expression]

166. May I ask why?

because every effort to "debunk" it has been debunked thoroughly.

Please, I don't think you really have an actual explanation.

[Zhade]

130. Except, of course, that it didn't happen.

It only APPEARED to happen - and of course, NO ONE has EVER faked a 'miracle' before!

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

59. It's a miracle!...

My lawn chair, and my plastic watering can have been inhabited by Ganesh and are able to drink water out of a stainless steel tablespoon!

Quick, call CNN, USAToday and the Hindu Times. My lawn chair has been possessed by a thirsty Ganesh!

I wish I could upload the video of the water vanishing from the spoon, but alas, you'll just have to take my word that I was able to replicate the miracle using no more than the above household items, and a little knowledge of physics.

The fact that you had to go to India, a land with a billion mostly uneducated people and a long history of superstition and mysticism, to find a miracle should have been a warning sign. But, stupidly, I decided to play along. But now that I've seen the same thing with my own two eyes, I'm playing no longer.

Look, nobody is going to change what you believe. That's the nice thing about faith, it belongs to you and you don't have to justify it to anyone.

Me, I prefer to live in the reality-based world.

And while incompatible chemical reactions and water vapour might be "types of reactions that are very much like fires", you still can't roast the "quintessential" marshmallows on 'em.

Sid

[manic expression]

69. Well...

If you had video evidence of what happened, and something that could not be properly replicated later, then perhaps you'd have something to talk about. As it stands, you're just being sarcastic after being unable to give a "scientific" explanation for what happened.

It occurred not only in India, but in Africa, Europe and America. Oh, and India has been the center of scientific advances for a very long time (for instance: Qitab Minar, the ancient metal pillar that does not rust. Yeah, so uncultured :eyes:), so don't try to paint them as superstitious.

It seems you can't justify your criticisms. What I've said has stood up to skepticism, your words have not.

About the vapor and reactions, do they put out the same smoke as a common fire? If they don't then one can see what the source is by looking at the evidence. Sorry, it still works.

[Zhade]

83. Yeah, it might be fire.

Or it might be DRY ICE.

You know?

[manic expression]

97. Does dry ice create

the exact same reaction as a regular fire?

[immoderate]

60. Everything is everything, dude.

"I see no difference between the simplest sponge, myself or any other entity in this world."

Yes I see the resemblance.

--IMM

[Zhade]

79. "This points to the fact that existence is more than physical and mental."

No, it actually doesn't point to any such "fact", because that "fact" has not been established as, well, factual.

It is a suggestion that there might be something there, but it's hardly conclusive proof. And if there IS something to it, surely we will one day be able to identify and quantify it. As has been said, magic is just science we don't yet understand.

"Look around you, "God" is within everything."

Define 'god'.

"Existence is pervasive throughout and within everything, it is eternal."

Obviously, if one looks around, whatever one physically sees EXISTS in some manner (even if only in the viewer's mind), but I would like some explanation of its 'eternal' nature and evidence supporting that conclusion.

"If one sees smoke, one knows that there is fire."

Or dry ice.

[SidDithers]

85. Stop trying to inject logic and common sense into this thread...

you're only gonna give yourself a headache :)

:toast: to you for trying

Sid

[Zhade]

89. I get them everyday.

Hell, someone woke me up to offer me a damned pamphlet. The only reason I didn't YELL "I'm an atheist, leave me alone already!" is because he had his kids with him.

[DivinBreuvage]

140. Does love exist? Can you quantify it? n/t

[manic expression]

161. Of course love exists

You deny what so many people feel and have felt?

Perhaps there is no way of measuring it, yet it is undeniable.

A fish doesn't have to quantify water.

[manic expression]

167. Yes, it does

The way I use the term "God" is quite loose, but I believe everything is "God". Everything is ultimately equal and one, as well as eternal.

Whatever one sees in physical form is the embodiment of a higher entity (one which is eternal). Eternal nature can be seen by the Conservation of Mass/Energy Theories (apply this to life instead of energy and look what you get).

Dry ice gives off CO2 Gas:


Which is different from regular smoke:
http://www.webcom.com/~bi/table2.htm

So, it is different.

[Zhade]

78. "There's more to the World than Physical Reality."

Prove it.

No, really, prove it. You never offer evidence other than your assertion that "There's more to the World than Physical Reality."

You still to date have shown ZERO evidence to back up your assertion. At this point, I'm guessing it's because you know you don't have any.

"And the Mental and Spiritual World obviously intimidates many DU'ers."

Hardly - some of us just insist on allegations being backed up with evidence. Your "because I say so" approach to reality doesn't fly.

[neweurope]

41. Both Einstein and Hawking came to the conclusion

that there must be God, if I'm not mistaken.

----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[immoderate]

45. You're mistaken.

--IMM

[OxQQme]

53. Maybe this should be in the skeptic's forum

for all you skeptics:

Given the concept that there is extraterrestrial intelligence, and that we’ve done our level best in conducting a search for intelligent Extraterrestrial Life, in order to find them (and/or communicate with them), the next obvious concern is whether or not we are currently being visited on a regular or irregular basis by extraterrestrial intelligences. Forget for the moment that the Anunnaki, angels, archangels, and the like are aliens of the space world kind. The question is whether or not there are UFOs manned by UFOlk!

The Disclosure Project is a significant attempt to bring all the evidence out of the closet (and secret files) with respect to there being extraterrestrials in other-worldly (and thus unidentified) flying craft having been sighted, with their occupants/pilots being met, invited to lunch, and/or abducting human beings for a host of different reasons. Some of this material is contained in the website, http://extraterrestrial-life.net.

Governments, of course, have been adamant about denying any knowledge of the reality of UFOs or that they might actually be interplanetary or interstellar craft. They have also denied the events of Roswell, the existence of Area 51 (which even the nightly news has shown to exist, at least on official government documents), and the alleged presence of the Easter Bunny -- despite the continuing clamor by the population at large of: “Show me the Bunny!”

The government’s position is basically indefensible -- as was the preceding pun. There is, for example, Space Law, which takes the position of controlling absolutely anyone’s potential access to space thru highly questionable, very narrow-minded laws, and Space Exposure Law which suggests that we must be protected from those Earth people who might be fraternizing with aliens of the extraterrestrial kind. Essentially, if you encounter an angel or other ET, you may require being quarantined (aka imprisoned) for a very long time. Ezekiel would have been in deep trouble if such laws were retroactive.

Small wonder that UFOs are shy about being seen, contacted, or invited to tea.

UFO sightings might also be considered evidence of on-going “Prime Directive” Violations. Robert Dean <1> has reported on a 1960s NATO Official Report, of which he became acquainted during his tenure with the organization. This NATO report concluded that: 1) Earth is being surveyed by several ET civilizations, 2) these civilizations have demonstrated technologies hundreds or thousands of years ahead of Earth’s, 3) there is, apparently, an extraterrestrial plan underway, 4) this plan has been going on for thousands of years, and 5) the extraterrestrials do not appear to be a threat (i.e. there is nothing we could do if they were, a fact which still applies). Dean goes on to say that were they malevolent, the party would already have been over. The report was, according to Dean, classified Cosmic Top Secret , and is considered the single most sensitive document NATO has.

Dean also indicated that as of 1964, there were four civilizations including: 1) Four versions of “Grey Dudes” -- who were androids, clones, or lab products, 2) “Tall Dudes”, and 3) a group looking just like us (and thus the scariest!). By 1976, Dean concluded, there were a hundred different extraterrestrial groups, clearly visitations from other solar systems, other galaxies, and other dimensions. Dean went on to say, “We are not alone. We have never been alone. We have had an intimate relationship with ETs via DNA manipulation, hybrids, and a relationship that is continuing. Abductions are by one group, working for another essentially unseen group.” <1>

So, why aren’t UFOs being seen on a regular basis? Tricia McCannon <2> believes UFO sightings are by people who are momentarily in a higher dimension. This provides the key to the apparent lack of extraterrestrials in our modern society. If the extraterrestrials are also interdimensional, operating in the fourth and fifth dimensions (with possibly the Ascended Masters operating in the sixth dimension, according to Melchizedek <3>) then a great deal of the mystery is explainable. It even accounts for Angels and that particular crowd. Floyd Hand, a Lakota Indian spiritual advisor, believes that there are over 220 dimensions <4>. That should be enough room for everyone

[lazarus]

56. Oh, please

please, please, please post that in the Skeptic's Forum!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

63. You most certainly have NOT read "A Brief History of Time." (nt)

[PassingFair]

177. You are, of course, mistaken n/t

[stepnw1f]

57. Apply That Standard for Creationism or "unIntelligent Design"

Phoney.

[Lorien]

68. For a period of time during the 1880s, the US patent office was closed

because the powers that be during that time believed that everything that could be invented had been invented. Few people living at that time would have imagined the very thing in front of you at this moment; your PC or Mac. It would have seemed to them to be something entirely supernatural.

Man is an arrogant species. Every generation thinks it has all the answers, and every generation is proven wrong. There are thousands of earth shaking discoveries yet to be made; including, perhaps, definitive proof of extraterrestrials, God, communication with dolphins...who knows? If history has shown us anything, it's that present arrogance will be defined as ignorance by future generations on subjects that are currently still being debated, as well as many for whom the debate has already ended.

[Desertrose]

105. Arrogant indeed.....I agree....

" present arrogance will be defined as ignorance by future generations "


Thank heavens they reopened that patent office!
I love my Mac :)


your kitties are adorable.

[Codeine]

157. Untrue! Baloney!

That's an urban myth.

On page 32B of the Feb. 1996 Scientific American, John Horgan debunks the famous myth about "the commissioner of U.S. patents who in 1899 asked that his office be abolished because `everything that can be invented has been invented'". Bill Gates's recent book/CDROM about the road apples ahead and the March 17, 1995 issue of Science magazine perpetuate this myth.

Apparently, a 1940 article in the Journal of the Patent Office Society
by Eber Jeffery investigated this myth, and found that the possible source of this myth was Henry Ellsworth's (commissioner of patents) testimony to Congress in 1843. He apparently said that the rapid pace of innovation "taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end". However, far from asking that the office be closed, he asked for additional funds to cope with the flood of inventions, and 2 years later, when he stepped down, he was proud of having expanded the Patent Office.

[frictionlessO]

73. Ahhh but Mr Spock, is your logic as hard as your thoughts?

I agree and disagree and honestly I quite like it that way.

A balance is always needed with any broad brush, and miracles are most often where you find them. Sorry you haven't though... truly. Science can not and will not ever explain everything satisfactorily to all individuals even without the whitewash of the most horrid of religions/cults. The individual experience as a physical reality may at times face the completely incomprehensible, that individuals experience may never be explained away to them via scientific method. If no harm has come about other than they don't have 100% faith in science anymore, then really whats the problem?

Does it bug you to know some people were either lucky or disturbed enough to have seen faeries, ghosts, or their very own hyper-natural superbeing? If they aren't proselytizing and starting fights over their beliefs or in any other way trying to impose their beliefs on you, again what difference does it make??

Why tear down people of faith just because you hold none (don't respond with a broad brush attack when you mean to single out a very defined group of people). Also when debating these kinds of deeply emotional topics, these kinds of things that are so wrapped up in an individuals experience remember that the more you try to negate a persons belief system the more you set your own up for disbelief. The best way to change an individuals mind is by being what you are trying to convince them is better. Words more often hinder than help when trying to sway a person from a huge emotional investment.

I hope I didn't come off as an ass and sorry if that was just repetitive sounding BS... but you made me think on a Saturday afternoon. I try not to do that too often.

[Desertrose]

104. Thank you , excellent post.....

and you certainly didn't come across as an ass. I thought you made some great points.

Thanks,
DR

[Astarho]

74. Interesting thoughts

I don't necessarily agree with them all, but you do bring up some good points.

UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) are seen all the time by people all around the world. Many are later identified, but some aren't. The phenomenon is real, but the explanation behind it remains unclear (and likely will for some time). So we fill in the gaps to create some kind of order, because that is what humans do.

As for deities, they were also a way of filling in the gaps and they did and still do serve a purpose, so I would be hesitant to call them 'bullshit'. The gods are not discarded, they simply changed with the times. Humans also tend to throw out the old when the 'new and improved' comes along even though it may not be that different from the old at all (ie. "Osiris the old resurrected god was false, but the resurrected Jesus is the true God!").

I always believed that the gods existed in some form, even if only as characters in a story. The stories are still being retold, and adapting themselves to the times. The gods live on in the culture. Take Thor, for example. He still has a few followers (Asatru) and he shows up in comics and occasionally on an episode of Stargate SG-1 (where, ironically enough, he flies UFO's).

[Democrats_win]

103. The apple reminds me of Zenon's Paradox

"If you drop an apple, it will hit the ground. Over and over again."

http://joki.source.at/paradoxoncont.htm
The ancient Greek philosopher Zenon observed the following fact:

A fast runner runs after a turtle.
At the time the runner is where the turtle was at the beginning
the turtle has gone a bit further.
When the runner reaches this point the turtle has again gone a little bit further.
When the runner reaches this point the turtle has again gone a little bit further.
When the runner reaches this point the turtle has again gone a little bit further.
....
And so on and so on... forever...

Zenon thought that this means that the runner will never reach the turtle.
Since this contradicts the experience that the runner does reach the turtle
Zenon thought that the experience is wrong and movement is just an illusion

For the reason why this logic is wrong check out the website above.

121. god

Humankind is the result of billions of years of evolution, and we are still evolving. To conceive of something and then make it manifest is god-like.
Concept ---> Creation ------> Manifest

Yes I know I'm a newbie, so, can't I throw my ideas out there too. And what about some of our greatest leaders, weren't they deeply religious, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln. B-)

[dhinojosa]

145. WELCOME TO DU!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hi:

Post at will

[immoderate]

165. Welcome. Fear not.

Just know the rules and you'll be OK. Jump in, which I see you've already done, so here goes...

What you see can have happened in many ways. Some of them might require a creator. But there is no evidence that there is or ever was one. So I leave that alone. That suits me. Others have their own way.

:hi:

--IMM

[PassingFair]

176. You can scratch Lincoln from your little list...

The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-- Abraham Lincoln

He had many irreligious and anti religious writings that he destroyed LONG before he became President. He invoked God during the war as a means of healing a believing, bereaving populace

[onager]

185. And Lincoln DIDN'T invoke God in the Gettysburg Address...

You can look it up. Lincoln's original draft, in his own hand, still exists. It does not contain the words "under God."

Lincoln had one of the same problems we have today: a lazy, incompetent media. One newspaper reporter apparently thought he heard the words "under God" and inserted them in his article about the speech.

On Lincoln's cabinet were several professional Buybull-thumpers who always wanted him to invoke God more, especially his Secretary Of State William Seward. (We can thank one of Lincoln's bureacrats in the Treasury Department for sticking the unnecessary phrase "In God We Trust" on our money. It first appeared on a coin in 1864, after intense lobbying from the Religious Right of the day.)

Apparently Seward prevailed upon Lincoln to let "under God" stand in the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln went along with it.

IIRC, Lincoln was very hesitant to mix religion and politics because of past experience. He got beat in one Congressional race because his opponent used religion against him and hinted that he was a "Cambellite, who had also fought a duel."

186. lincoln and god

I am not a scholar, but I am sure I could search out many statements by him about his belief in God. I feel he was not a Christian as was his wife and probably all those around him. He was a thinker, and probably saw the hipocrocy of many people who called themselves Christians.

Anyway here is an excerpt from his 2nd inaugural speech.

"...Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.

The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of "God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another draw with the sword, as was said 3000 years ago, so still must it be said, ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

[kitkat65]

170. True, unless you live in a vacuum

As evolution doesn't exist if you live in a religious vacuum . . .