hupernikao:


Do you believe angels exist?
Do you believe supernatural power exist?
What of flying horses?

These are not God/god. Quit using textbook definition. Atheism is known and defined by your line of thought.

Read this and disprove that as not true.

None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with atheism. There are atheists that believe in the existence of supernatural beings. When you are talking about atheism and start to talking of flying horses you know you have derailed.

Jamahyel:
I was told just this morning that my landlord whom i saw last saturday is dead. Scares me that this life we are living can expire anytime.

Death does not concerns me, because as long as I exist, death is not here and once it does come I no longer exist.

Live your life without fear because death would never get you.

LordReed:


None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with atheism. There are atheists that believe in the existence of supernatural beings. When you are talking about atheism and start to talking of flying horses you know you have derailed.

Stability is key in conviction.

hupernikao:


Stability is key in conviction.

So why do you keep trying to add things to atheism that it's not?

TheSourcerer:
nothing happens just black , do you remember where you were before you were born?
There you go lad
The brain cannot fathom the idea of colour , feelings emotional or physical pain as this are only attributes of a living brain.

The same answer the Bible gives!

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20, 9:4-6, 10, 12:6-7

Maximus69:


The same answer the Bible gives!

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20, 9:4-6, 10, 12:6-7

only Ecclesiastes the philosopher can give a rather different idea if death than its regular hell fire and brimstone.

TheSourcerer:
only Ecclesiastes the philosopher can give a rather different idea if death than its regular hell fire and brimstone.

It's misinterpretation that resulted in misinformation!

In the beginning God gave humans just two options~

To continue living or die and return to noneexistence.

Any other part of the Bible should not be interpreted to contradict what God said IN THE BEGINNING!

What was interpreted as hellfire is Gehenna, it's a gabbage dump in Jerusalem where whatever the people feel they don't want to see or remember again is thrown. Thus the DEAD bodies of thieves and other blasphemers are thrown there.

The Israelites have been nursing the hope of resurrection for long, so Jesus is telling his listeners that in the same manner they usually throw whatever they don't want again into Gehenna, God will forget all evildoers completely, they will not be remembered during resurrection!

For further clarification on that check what God said about people roasting people alive in fire, please note what God later said in that text. "THIS IDEA NEVER CAME TO MY MIND" Jeremiah 7:31

100,000,000,000 spiteful people who want their enemies to be tormented alive can't infuse such idea in God's mind!

Tamaratonye1:

Just wanted to add, is that a hard rule with no exceptions?

Because if you can propose special pleading for a god, then if that one rule can be broken, it can also be broken concerning the origin of this known universe.

"Nothing" never exists.
If the 'Universe" is surrounded by "Nothing", it means that it never exists.
If it was preceded by "Nothing", it means that it never exists.
"Anything" always exists.
"Anything" is formless but you are "something" to "something" else.
Ultimately,"Anything" remains as "Anything" and you need not consider it as "singular"/"plural" because it is always "Anything" or that which remains in the continuous absence of "Nothing" or that which simply exists towards the absence of "Nothing" or that which never moves or that which is never displaced.

hupernikao:

Above is based on false logic and assumption. You should point out the lack of honesty not give a bogus expression.

Hilarious.

How many more times should your misrepresentation of Atheism be trotted out please? After the first few times, one could chalk it up to ignorance. At this point, it's clear to me that this ignorance of yours is wilful dishonesty. In fact, examine your next statement...

hupernikao:

You said i made it up. it wasnt. Somethings have different textbook definition and real life definition/application. Such is atheism.

That's a lie, the commonly understood definition is the dictionary definition.

When atheists here say they are atheists they are referring to that dictionary definition, you don't get to lie and claim they mean something else, only an atheist can do that for themselves. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. When I say I am an atheist that is what I mean.

hupernikao:

I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, HENCE IT DOESNT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT, I KNOW IT EXIST....


1. Where does Atheism or your opinion falls in these three

Atheism is not a claim no deity exists, until you grasp this simple fact you will fail to see your position is irrational. I don't need to be sure something doesn't exist in order to disbelieve the claim, in fact I find the idea I would believe a claim until I was sure it is invalid a preposterous position.

Now to your question,

The answer is nowhere, as you already know, because it's been explained to you many times already.

I don't believe any deity exists, this is not an opinion, or a claim, it is the rejection of a claim for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated, and I disbelieve all such claims.

hupernikao:
I emphasize this so that we can rest on NL from words like "it cannot be scientifically proven, so it doesnt exist"

Ficticious quote.

hupernikao:

This did not answer by question. We know there are tools to know if one is dreaming, even by simple physical observation we can detect in few occasions. My question is premised on the content of the dream, the served rice, not yam, the rice without meat, why, the very events in dreams. No such tool exist, not even logical truth. So leave that.

Actually, let's stay on that because I found something interesting I'll share in my very next post here.

Meanwhile, have you heard of Germ theory? Little buggers aren’t seen. Doctor stumbles on to some weird connection between washing your hands before delivering babies and mortality rate dropping. Suggests washing hands. Other doctors laugh. He sets up a protocol and tests his hypothesis... blah blah blah now we can see the buggers...

It’s a Theory. Did you know it can still be adjusted dependant on new information?

Now...let’s say you are right (this is extremely vital to you). Let’s say God exists just like those little germs (even as I write this I’m shaking my head) but unlike Germs we can’t “see God” yet... we the atheists are like those doctors that laughed when the first doctor washed his hands after touching the dead...

But you dear sir and your ilk are not like that first doctor. You are running around the hospital telling us what the germs want us to do and how the germs want us to behave. The germs have a plan for us and they only kill the bad. The germs talk to you and you’ve written it all down... Except you don’t know what a “germ” is either. You’ve only washed your hands.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY GOD AS DESCRIBED BY HUMANS

So I ask...can you define the God you believe in?

E/ It is so funny that you criticize science for being unreliable in methods of proof, yet believe in something purely by blind faith. I can make up a deity in an hour and claim the same things you do, and say that it is "unprovable by science". Of course something made up without regard to the laws of the universe cannot be proven by said laws.

Your argument is invalid because you fail to take into account that your entire belief system was thought up thousands of years ago by people with no concept of natural and physical law, in a place and time where modern science was not even considered as a possibility. Now, we do have methods to call BS on most Christian beliefs, but some doctrines and dogmas of Christianity are so far fetched from reality that logic and reason cannot be used to prove or disprove it.

So, you cannot claim that a method of proof is invalid purely based off of the fact that it cannot prove the imaginary.

Oh dear

Even before I delve further into this topic, I found this paper very quickly:

Dreaming As Mind Wandering: Evidence From Functional Neuroimaging And First-Person Content Reports by Kieran C. R. Fox, Savannah Nijeboer, Elizaveta Solomonova, G. William Domhoff, and Kalina Christoff, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:Article 412 (July 2013) DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00412 [Full paper downloadable from here]

cc. hupernikao

From the paper in question, we have:

Abstract

Isolated reports have long suggested a similarity in content and thought processes across mind wandering (MW) during waking, and dream mentation during sleep. This overlap has encouraged speculation that both “daydreaming” and dreaming may engage similar brain mechanisms. To explore this possibility, we systematically examined published first-person experiential reports of MW and dreaming and found many similarities: in both states, content is largely audiovisual and emotional, follows loose narratives tinged with fantasy, is strongly related to current concerns, draws on long-term memory, and simulates social interactions. Both states are also characterized by a relative lack of meta-awareness. To relate first-person reports to neural evidence, we compared meta-analytic data from numerous functional neuroimaging (PET, fMRI) studies of the default mode network (DMN, with high chances of MW) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (with high chances of dreaming). Our findings show large overlaps in activation patterns of cortical regions: similar to MW/DMN activity, dreaming and REM sleep activate regions implicated in self-referential thought and memory, including medial prefrontal cortex (PFC), medial temporal lobe structures, and posterior cingulate. Conversely, in REM sleep numerous PFC executive regions are deactivated, even beyond levels seen during waking MW. We argue that dreaming can be understood as an “intensified” version of waking MW: though the two share many similarities, dreams tend to be longer, more visual and immersive, and to more strongly recruit numerous key hubs of the DMN. Further, whereas MW recruits fewer PFC regions than goal-directed thought, dreaming appears to be characterized by an even deeper quiescence of PFC regions involved in cognitive control and metacognition, with a corresponding lack of insight and meta-awareness. We suggest, then, that dreaming amplifies the same features that distinguish MW from goal-directed waking thought.

Oh look, scientists have been able to establish salient features of dreaming via direct neuroimaging techniques.

The authors then set the stage for their investigations as follows:

Dreaming” is usually understood as subjective mental experiences during sleep. Although most famously (and strongly) associated with REM sleep (Aserinsky and Kleitman, 1953; Dement and Kleitman, 1957), dream-like thought is also reported during other sleep stages (see Methods).

For several reasons, by “dreaming” we will generally be referring to subjective reports drawn from REM sleep: for one thing, the majority of “dream” reports have been elicited from REM sleep-stage laboratory awakenings; further, only REM sleep shows a particularly strong correlation with dream mentation (~80% of awakenings from REM sleep result in dream reports: Hobson et al., 2000). For the purposes of the present paper, then, “dreaming” refers to mentation reports from REM sleep.

“Undirected” thought is a similarly complex construct, and can be divided into several different categories (Christoff, 2012). “Mind wandering” (MW) and “stimulus-independent thought” (SIT), for instance, are typically defined as thinking that deviates from a particular task a subject is meant to be completing (McGuire et al., 1996; Mason et al., 2007; Christoff et al., 2009). “Spontaneous thought,” on the other hand, is characterized rather by its undirected, effortless nature—more akin to the everyday concept of “daydreaming” (Singer, 1966; Klinger, 1990; Christoff, 2012); no particular task, or deviation from it, is required. Subtle differences are apparent: MW, for example, might be initiated deliberately (as when a subject decides to “tune out” during a boring task) rather than being “spontaneous.” Nonetheless, these terms are often used interchangeably or with only minimal definition. Fluidity of terminology seems inevitable, however, in a relatively young field of inquiry (Christoff, 2012); moreover, the subjective content and neural basis of these states appear highly similar (compare, e.g., Singer and McCraven, 1961; Christoff et al., 2004, 2009; Stawarczyk et al., 2011). We therefore use these terms relatively interchangeably throughout this paper. MW, spontaneous thought, or daydreaming, then, all refer to subjective reports of undirected thoughts during wakefulness (whether deviating from, or in the complete absence of, a task).

After an exposition on the specific brain regions that are active as part of the Default Mode Network (DMN), including relevant fMRI scans illustrating the activity levels in the regions in question, we have this:

REM sleep is initiated by a network of cells in the pons and nearby portions of the midbrain (Siegel, 2011), but involves a widespread recruitment of higher cortical brain regions (see our meta-analytic results, below, for regions of this theoretical REM network: Table ​Table22 and Figure ​Figure1).1). REM sleep recurs, in increasingly lengthy periods, approximately every 90 mins throughout the sleep cycle, overall constituting about 1.5–2 h of an average night of sleep. Whereas non-REM (NREM) sleep stages are generally characterized by deactivation of many regions as compared to wakefulness (e.g., Kaufmann et al., 2006), REM is unique in that many brain regions are clearly more active than during wakefulness (Table 2). REM also appears to be the most active state from the subjective point of view, with longer, more emotional, and more frequent dream mentation in REM than any other sleep stage (Hobson et al., 2000). REM therefore appears to be by far the best neural marker of dreaming, though it nonetheless remains problematic (see Methods).

A look at the Methods section provides a detailed exposition of the processes used to eliminate phenomena that might impact upon the utility of the neuroimaging techniques they used to perform their analysis, thus ensuring that their results are consistent.

After much discussion of detail, the authors provide this:

Neural evidence for dreaming as intensified mind wandering

To ensure a consistent picture of REM sleep brain activity, we only included in our meta-analysis studies that used relaxed wakefulness (instead of, e.g., other sleep stages) as a baseline condition. Thus the activations observed in REM sleep (Table ​(Table2)2) are in contrast to quiet, waking rest, which—though not directly examined in the studies in question—would very likely have resulted in spontaneous thought/MW at the subjective level, and recruited DMN brain regions. Since the observed foci of activation generally represent t-tests contrasting REM sleep > waking rest, it seems probable that our meta-analytic results actually represent regions showing greater activity during REM sleep than during DMN activation/MW. Because so many significant clusters for REM sleep activation overlapped with DMN regions, these results suggest that brain activity in REM sleep does not simply parallel DMN activity, but rather represents an intensified version of it (Figure 3). The finding of greater cerebral blood flow in DMN regions during REM sleep vs. probable waking DMN activity is consistent with the many qualitative, first-person results discussed above (Section First-person Reports of Content from Mind Wandering and Dreaming), which suggest that mentation during REM sleep is in many ways a longer, immersive, more intensive version of waking spontaneous thoughts and daydreams (Figure ​(Figure33).

Also of interest are prefrontal cortical (PFC) regions, involved in executive processes like cognitive control and goal-directed thought. It is well known that numerous such regions, particularly the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC), are consistently engaged by effortful, goal-directed tasks (Duncan and Owen, 2000). Though executive PFC regions are not part of the canonical DMN (Table ​3; Buckner et al., 2008), more direct, online assessments of MW, using first-person reports combined with fMRI, show that executive PFC areas, alongside core DMN areas, may also be activated during MW (Christoff et al., 2009). Though MW-related activity was not observed in some other PFC regions, robust activation was found in dorsal ACC and DLPFC (Christoff et al., 2009), suggesting that executive processes may to some degree be ongoing during MW. REM sleep, in contrast, shows no such activations; indeed, we found numerous executive PFC regions to be deactivated (Table 2, Figure 1). We propose the tentative notion that waking thought, waking MW, and dream mentation may lie along a continuum of intensity with respect to executive function, as well: executive regions are most active during waking goal-directed thought, undergo a large (but probably not total) diminution during waking rest/MW, and become relatively quiescent, perhaps even actively suppressed, during REM sleep (Figure 3; see also Christoff et al., 2011).

So, it's not as if there hasn't been any scientific research in this field.

But it gets even better, courtesy of this paper:

Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep by T. Horikawa, M. Tamaki, Y. Miyawaki & Y. Kamitani, Science, 340: 639-642 (3rd May 2013) DOI: 10.1126/science.1234330 [Paper available from here]

From the abstract:

visual imagery during the sleep-onset period, given measured brain activity, by discovering links between human functional magnetic resonance imaging patterns and verbal reports with the assistance of lexical and image databases. Decoding models trained on stimulus-induced brain activity in visual cortical areas showed accurate classification, detection, and identification of contents. Our findings demonstrate that specific visual experience during sleep is represented by brain activity patterns shared by stimulus perception, providing a means to uncover subjective contents of dreaming using objective neural measurement.

Oh look. The authors of this paper demonstrate that a suitably programmed computer can reliably discern the nature of visual data occurring in dreams from fMRI data.

Looks like once again, a certain mythology fanboy is ignorant of the relevant research.

I've been aware for some time, of advances made in the reliable determination of images observed by individuals while awake using fMRI data, but this is the first paper I've encountered extending that research to dream imagery.

At bottom, it's all neurochemistry. No magic man needed.

E/ the paper I provided above isn't yet documenting the display on screen of relevant images, but previous research involving images perceived by awake individuals has started to move into this area - reproducing on screen images that are consonant with what the subject has viewed. But the mere fact that the paper I described above, demonstrates that a computer can classify the images appearing in a dream reliably, given the fMRI data, is a step forward that the mythology fanboys are completely unaware of, and which is already shattering their complacent notions on this subject.

SHALOM!

Jamahyel:

I was told just this morning that my landlord whom i saw last saturday is dead. Scares me that this life we are living can expire anytime.

I AM SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS.

However, you cannot die "anytime."

Unless you work hard.

One HENRY GAGE had a thick IRON ROD rammed THROUGH his head- but did not die.

Death can be very unreliable.

Some of us have eaten INDOMIE and drunk TOILET-CLEANER (aka COCA-COLA!) for DECADES- and we are still here!

THERE ARE FOUR POSSIBLE AFTERLIFE FATES:

]b]4. HEAVEN:[/b] For those who die with Enlightenment.

3. PARADISE: For those who die Righteously with TOTAL RECALL, but not ENLIGHTENMENT.

2. HELL: [/b]For those who die Sinfully, but with TOTAL RECALL.

[b]1. OBLIVION: For those who die without TOTAL RECALL, no matter how Righteous, Unrighteous, Enlightened, or Unenlightened they are.

[See: THE FIRE FROM WITHIN, by Carlos Castaneda.
THE ART OF DREAMING, by Carlos Castaneda.
THE ACTIVE SIDE OF INFINITY, by Carlos Castaneda.]

A popular Oyinbo Colonial/Imperialist Organized Christianity misconception is that ONLY "JESUS" can take one into HEAVEN. There is NOWHERE in The Bible that teaches that. There have been races that learned about Heaven even long before MOSES, and treated It as just another Travel Destination- going to Heaven any time they wanted.

The Bible corroborates CARLOS CASTANEDA'S practical experiences with Heaven- having been there with both his SPIRIT-SELF, AND Hus PHYSICAL BODY.

The Oyinbos have worked hard to COVER-UP his findings- which prove that the Oyinbo Race have murdered MILLIONS of people over centuries, just to keep this Knowledge from their versions of Christian Churches, that think one can INVADE, STEAL, KILL, AND DESTROY- but still go to Heaven when they died.

Tamaratonye1:

Hilarious.

How many more times should your misrepresentation of Atheism be trotted out please? After the first few times, one could chalk it up to ignorance. At this point, it's clear to me that this ignorance of yours is wilful dishonesty. In fact, examine your next statement...


That's a lie, the commonly understood definition is the dictionary definition.

When atheists here say they are atheists they are referring to that dictionary definition, you don't get to lie and claim they mean something else, only an atheist can do that for themselves. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. When I say I am an atheist that is what I mean.


Atheism is not a claim no deity exists, until you grasp this simple fact you will fail to see your position is irrational. I don't need to be sure something doesn't exist in order to disbelieve the claim, in fact I find the idea I would believe a claim until I was sure it is invalid a preposterous position.

Now to your question,

The answer is nowhere, as you already know, because it's been explained to you many times already.

I don't believe any deity exists, this is not an opinion, or a claim, it is the rejection of a claim for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated, and I disbelieve all such claims.



Ficticious quote.


Actually, let's stay on that because I found something interesting I'll share in my very next post here.

Meanwhile, have you heard of Germ theory? Little buggers aren’t seen. Doctor stumbles on to some weird connection between washing your hands before delivering babies and mortality rate dropping. Suggests washing hands. Other doctors laugh. He sets up a protocol and tests his hypothesis... blah blah blah now we can see the buggers...

It’s a Theory. Did you know it can still be adjusted dependant on new information?

Now...let’s say you are right (this is extremely vital to you). Let’s say God exists just like those little germs (even as I write this I’m shaking my head) but unlike Germs we can’t “see God” yet... we the atheists are like those doctors that laughed when the first doctor washed his hands after touching the dead...

But you dear sir and your ilk are not like that first doctor. You are running around the hospital telling us what the germs want us to do and how the germs want us to behave. The germs have a plan for us and they only kill the bad. The germs talk to you and you’ve written it all down... Except you don’t know what a “germ” is either. You’ve only washed your hands.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY GOD AS DESCRIBED BY HUMANS

So I ask...can you define the God you believe in?

E/ It is so funny that you criticize science for being unreliable in methods of proof, yet believe in something purely by blind faith. I can make up a deity in an hour and claim the same things you do, and say that it is "unprovable by science". Of course something made up without regard to the laws of the universe cannot be proven by said laws.

Your argument is invalid because you fail to take into account that your entire belief system was thought up thousands of years ago by people with no concept of natural and physical law, in a place and time where modern science was not even considered as a possibility. Now, we do have methods to call BS on most Christian beliefs, but some doctrines and dogmas of Christianity are so far fetched from reality that logic and reason cannot be used to prove or disprove it.

So, you cannot claim that a method of proof is invalid purely based off of the fact that it cannot prove the imaginary.

All your response are full of so many assumptions and pretense from realities of what most of yours (folks) claim. It is called unstable.
I will respond fully in due time.

Tamaratonye1:
Oh dear

Even before I delve further into this topic, I found this paper very quickly:

Dreaming As Mind Wandering: Evidence From Functional Neuroimaging And First-Person Content Reports by Kieran C. R. Fox, Savannah Nijeboer, Elizaveta Solomonova, G. William Domhoff, and Kalina Christoff, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:Article 412 (July 2013) DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00412 [Full paper downloadable from here]

cc. hupernikao

From the paper in question, we have:



Oh look, scientists have been able to establish salient features of dreaming via direct neuroimaging techniques.

The authors then set the stage for their investigations as follows:



After an exposition on the specific brain regions that are active as part of the Default Mode Network (DMN), including relevant fMRI scans illustrating the activity levels in the regions in question, we have this:



A look at the Methods section provides a detailed exposition of the processes used to eliminate phenomena that might impact upon the utility of the neuroimaging techniques they used to perform their analysis, thus ensuring that their results are consistent.

After much discussion of detail, the authors provide this:



So, it's not as if there hasn't been any scientific research in this field.

But it gets even better, courtesy of this paper:

Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep by T. Horikawa, M. Tamaki, Y. Miyawaki & Y. Kamitani, Science, 340: 639-642 (3rd May 2013) DOI: 10.1126/science.1234330 [Paper available from here]

From the abstract:



Oh look. The authors of this paper demonstrate that a suitably programmed computer can reliably discern the nature of visual data occurring in dreams from fMRI data.

Looks like once again, a certain mythology fanboy is ignorant of the relevant research.

I've been aware for some time, of advances made in the reliable determination of images observed by individuals while awake using fMRI data, but this is the first paper I've encountered extending that research to dream imagery.

At bottom, it's all neurochemistry. No magic man needed.

E/ the paper I provided above isn't yet documenting the display on screen of relevant images, but previous research involving images perceived by awake individuals has started to move into this area - reproducing on screen images that are consonant with what the subject has viewed. But the mere fact that the paper I described above, demonstrates that a computer can classify the images appearing in a dream reliably, given the fMRI data, is a step forward that the mythology fanboys are completely unaware of, and which is already shattering their complacent notions on this subject.

It is either you arent reading what you posted or you are actually at the peak of close mindedness.
What you posted is not new and have been inferred over time on how dream can come and processed. The technology either was borrowed from the field of image processing/virtual signaling.

I asked you of details of dream content, that is why such of it, you are posting a research yet to even conclude on a fact that dream can be tested.
Like i said there is nothing new to logic in all you put up there, the author its self still agreed that dreams are subjective.

The basis, foundation of this research up there is still anchor on measurable experience (real life/lifestyle) of the individual or others prior to dream. That is the baseline. A comparison of computerized imagery generated from anchoring tubes on individual arent new to science. In field of image processing, that is the foundation, a basis must exist to compare and generate or inferred a result. That basis of comparison in this case is still the human experiential capability and not far from what was documented even in the Bible you questioned most:

Ecclesiastes 5:11
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

That places some dreams in such realm. Not a new thing. What we spoke about was explaining the reason for its content: i quote myself again.

We know there are tools to know if one is dreaming, even by simple physical observation we can detect in few occasions. My question is premised on the content of the dream, the served rice, not yam, the rice without meat, WHY, the very events in dreams. No such tool exist, not even logical truth. So leave that.

That was my quote, and that isn't address in that work. The focus of that work is to know what was dreamt not why. Except you also want to make a costly assumption made in that research:

A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION made in the research is that ALL DREAMS COME FROM A BASE EXPERIENCE OR A PRIOR EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION, HENCE THE ESSENCE IT IS BENCHMARK WITH PREVIOUS DREAM RECORDS/INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO EXPLAIN.

.
As it is in most research, this is a very grievous error cum assumption.

hupernikao:


It is either you arent reading what you posted or you are actually at the peak of close mindedness.
What you posted is not new and have been inferred over time on how dream can come and processed. The technology either was borrowed from the field of image processing/virtual signaling.

I asked you of details of dream content, that is why such of it, you are posting a research yet to even conclude on a fact that dream can be tested.
Like i said there is nothing new to logic in all you put up there, the author its self still agreed that dreams are subjective.

The basis, foundation of this research up there is still anchor on measurable experience (real life/lifestyle) of the individual or others prior to dream. That is the baseline. A comparison of computerized imagery generated from anchoring tubes on individual arent new to science. In field of image processing, that is the foundation, a basis must exist to compare and generate or inferred a result. That basis of comparison in this case is still the human experiential capability and not far from what was documented even in the Bible you questioned most:

Ecclesiastes 5:11
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

That places some dreams in such realm. Not a new thing. What we spoke about was explaining the reason for its content: i quote myself again.



That was my quote, and that isn't address in that work. The focus of that work is to know what was dreamt not why. Except you also want to make a costly assumption made in that research:

.
As it is in most research, this is a very grievous error cum assumption.

Baba don't mind that girl

Just ask her how , can we see our dreams when our physical eyes are closed

Just ask that question, and relax in one corner , be watching her non- stop madness

hupernikao:


All your response are full of so many assumptions and pretense from realities of what most of yours (folks) claim. It is called unstable.
I will respond fully in due time.

Swell.

Meanwhile, here are a few questions you seem determined to continue ignoring:

[1] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
[2] How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?
[3] How many beliefs that form no part of your superstitious religious beliefs, do you hold that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for? (list them please)
[4] Since you insist on repeatedly and dishonestly rehashing an argumentum ignorantiam fallacy that attempts to reverse your burden of proof, please tell us what "proof" you have that unicorns and mermaids, and all other deities humans have ever created are not real?

That'll do for a start.... no more of your dishonest evasion now, you have come to me, so piss, or get off the pot!

Must you use insult, argumentum ad hominem smh, please try to be more kind with your choice of word. Thank you. Anyway, nice sentence structure

Tamaratonye1:

I'm not aware that your imaginary friend exists "deep inside". Your pretending to know what I believe is futile. What you have here is a failed attempt to convince yourself (not me) that your favourite imaginary friend exists, even when it looks like your fantasy bubble is being rudely bursted on an online chat forum. You can't handle it, and are now attempting desperately to shut down the argument with this old chestnut.

Now to your question,

When you say, "how does energy get into the system", this is asking the question in completely the wrong way , in my opinion. The universe is all that there is, unless you can offer evidence to the contrary.

If the total energy of the universe is zero (which is a highly valid hypothesis, based on what we know about the universe), you have your answer, which is that it didn't - what we see is just perturbations around the zero-energy mean. And your argument is of little or no practical relevance. Whether this is true or not is something we might never know. But at least it is based on observations and logic, as opposed to the supernatural claims of the followers of the petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; the vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully(*). Or, as you might know "him": God.

Plus, the first law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what happened before the rapid expansion. And please don't pull out all the stops just to lie to yourself. NO ONE knows what happened before the rapid expansion.

I once asked a physicist acquaintance "what was there before the big bang? Sorry, rapid expansion. His answer: 'there was no before". Stephen Hawking said that when the universe was a singularity, the size of a single atom, time and space did not exist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5ukK7ngL8

Lawrence Krauss also has an interesting video on the notion of a universe from nothing . I can't claim to understand all of it. I'm actually more interested in the fact that competent scientists are seriously discussing the topic; to me that means the matter is not settled.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

Your questions seem to me to be a sneaky attempt at shifting the burden of proof . I for one have made no claims of scientific expertise nor about the existence of god. I need prove nothing. It is up the the theist to prove his claim of the existence of god, or any claims about science.

The internet is loaded with scientific papers by (Steinhardt & Turok for example), in which they postulate a mechanism for energy being donated to the incipient universe. But I suspect you have been too busy pretending that apologetics dictates how reality behaves, to bother with such inconvenient interruptions to your fantasy as actually reading the extant cosmological physics literature. Instead you come over here to embarrass your cult members with your false claims and nasty, bogging, appalling, unspeakable, unbelievable, nightmarish use of English.

I mean, for a second I squinted my face trying to understand the question "How did does Energy got into the system". Couldn't you read before posting this eyesore? Do you have problems constructing sentences? Anyways, I digress...

Now riddle me this... can you demonstrate how we get causally to 'God'?

For example, we know we can follow natural causal links all the way back to a second after the big bang... everything has a naturalistic cause.

What is the preceding natural cause before you specifically invoke your god?


(*) Credit to Richard Dawkins, for this magnificent rant.

hupernikao:


It is either you arent reading what you posted or you are actually at the peak of close mindedness.

Oh look, it purports to be in a position to lecture me. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The irony of being accused of "closed mindedness" by a mythology fanboy is truly delicious to savour. What part of "I found peer reviewed scientific papers that destroy your smug, self-satisfied, complacent and hubristic assertions" do you not understand?

hupernikao:
What you posted is not new and have been inferred over time on how dream can come and processed. The technology either was borrowed from the field of image processing/virtual signaling.

So the fact that scientists are able to gather data on dreams, which destroys your assertions on this subject, is an inconvenient fact you're going to ignore in typical mythology fanboy fashion?

hupernikao:
I asked you of details of dream content,

What part of "the researchers demonstrated that their computer was able to classify dream content reliably from the fMRI data" did you fail to understand from my post?

hupernikao:

that is why such of it, you are posting a research yet to even conclude on a fact that dream can be tested.

This lie of yours is so transparent in the light of the content of those papers, as to be beneath deserving of a point of view.

hupernikao:

Like i said there is nothing new to logic in all you put up there, the author its self still agreed that dreams are subjective.

But, wait for it, we now have objective data we can call upon to determine the content thereof. Courtesy of the fact that different dream content is the result of the activation of different parts of the brain. Once again, it's neurochemistry all the way down, and you have no answer to this, other than to peddle fatuous assertions and risible apologetic fabrications.

hupernikao:
The basis, foundation of this research up there is still anchor on measurable experience (real life/lifestyle) of the individual or others prior to dream.That is the baseline.

A comparison of computerized imagery generated from anchoring tubes on individual arent new to science. In field of image processing, that is the foundation, a basis must exist to compare and generate or inferred a result.

Oh wait, you do realise that both dreams and hallucinations have been documented to be grounded in past real world experience, even when bizarre reworkings thereof form part of the content? Indeed, my six foot cockroach from my meningitis episode in 1994 is here to point and laugh at you in this regard. Would I have hallucinated a six foot cockroach without a prior background in invertebrate zoology? Methinks not.

Oh, and apparently you haven't learned from your own exposition above, that without data, you have nothing.

hupernikao:
That basis of comparison in this case is still the human experiential capability and not far from what was documented even in the Bible you questioned most:

Ecclesiastes 5:11
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

Ah, regurgitation of mythological assertion. Which means nothing. Because we've all seen mythology fanboys like you turn up here, presenting contradictory apologetic assertions about what said mythology is purportedly telling us. Which has much to do with the fact that mythology fanboys like you have no data to call upon.

hupernikao:
That places some dreams in such realm. Not a new thing. What we spoke about was explaining the reason for its content: i quote myself again.

Love the sound of the music of the spheres of your own verbal diarrhoea, don't you?

As those papers demonstrate, we're now in a position to determine with reliability said dream content from fMRI data. Which destroys your assertion.

hupernikao:

That was my quote, and that isn't address in that work.

Yes it is and you know it. You're doing nothing here but doubling down on your shit.

Quite simply, the data tells us that dreams arise because of neurochemical events in the brain during sleep, events that have both a chemical and electrical signature. Please explain to us all how this basic fact is purportedly "wrong", given that dreams can be influenced by the consumption of psychoactive substances before sleep, and have been documented being thus influenced? Indeed, a simple food such as cheese can exert a detectable effect, courtesy of the fact that cheese is rich in the amino acid tryptophan, and tryptophan is converted to serotonin in the brain, serotonin being, of course, a well known, well documented and powerful neurotransmitter.

hupernikao:

The focus of that work is to know what was dreamt not why. Except you also want to make a costly assumption made in that research:

Oh here we go with the mythology fanboy erection of "assumptions" ... seen plenty of this shit from creationists ...

hupernikao:

A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION made in the research is that ALL DREAMS COME FROM A BASE EXPERIENCE OR A PRIOR EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION, HENCE THE ESSENCE IT IS BENCHMARK WITH PREVIOUS DREAM RECORDS/INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO EXPLAIN.

This isn't an "assumption", it's a documented fact. this paper alone is but one of many documenting this, viz:

Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and its main oscillatory feature, frontal theta, have been related to the processing of recent emotional memories. As memories constitute much of the source material for our dreams, we explored the link between REM frontal theta and the memory sources of dreaming, so as to elucidate the brain activities behind the formation of dream content. Twenty participants were woken for dream reports in REM and slow wave sleep (SWS) while monitored using electroencephalography. Eighteen participants reported at least one REM dream and 14 at least one SWS dream, and they, and independent judges, subsequently compared their dream reports with log records of their previous daily experiences. The number of references to recent waking-life experiences in REM dreams was positively correlated with frontal theta activity in the REM sleep period. No such correlation was observed for older memories, nor for SWS dreams. The emotional intensity of recent waking-life experiences incorporated into dreams was higher than the emotional intensity of experiences that were not incorporated. These results suggest that the formation of wakefulness-related dream content is associated with REM theta activity, and accords with theories that dreaming reflects emotional memory processing taking place in REM sleep

hupernikao:

As it is in most research, this is a very grievous error cum assumption.

Except it isn't an "assumption", nor is it an error.

Here's a clue for you ... you would do better here if you had paid attention in classes devoted to the real world.

Maximus69:


It's misinterpretation that resulted in misinformation!

In the beginning God gave humans just two options~

To continue living or die and return to noneexistence.

Any other part of the Bible should not be interpreted to contradict what God said IN THE BEGINNING!

What was interpreted as hellfire is Gehenna, it's a gabbage dump in Jerusalem where whatever the people feel they don't want to see or remember again is thrown. Thus the DEAD bodies of thieves and other blasphemers are thrown there.

The Israelites have been nursing the hope of resurrection for long, so Jesus is telling his listeners that in the same manner they usually throw whatever they don't want again into Gehenna, God will forget all evildoers completely, they will not be remembered during resurrection!

For further clarification on that check what God said about people roasting people alive in fire, please note what God later said in that text. "THIS IDEA NEVER CAME TO MY MIND" Jeremiah 7:31

100,000,000,000 spiteful people who want their enemies to be tormented alive can't infuse such idea in God's mind!

what does Jeremiah 7 :13 say?

Tamaratonye1:

Oh look, it purports to be in a position to lecture me. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The irony of being accused of "closed mindedness" by a mythology fanboy is truly delicious to savour. What part of "I found peer reviewed scientific papers that destroy your smug, self-satisfied, complacent and hubristic assertions" do you not understand?



So the fact that scientists are able to gather data on dreams, which destroys your assertions on this subject, is an inconvenient fact you're going to ignore in typical mythology fanboy fashion?



What part of "the researchers demonstrated that their computer was able to classify dream content reliably from the fMRI data" did you fail to understand from my post?



This lie of yours is so transparent in the light of the content of those papers, as to be beneath deserving of a point of view.


But, wait for it, we now have objective data we can call upon to determine the content thereof. Courtesy of the fact that different dream content is the result of the activation of different parts of the brain. Once again, it's neurochemistry all the way down, and you have no answer to this, other than to peddle fatuous assertions and risible apologetic fabrications.


A comparison of computerized imagery generated from anchoring tubes on individual arent new to science. In field of image processing, that is the foundation, a basis must exist to compare and generate or inferred a result.

Oh wait, you do realise that both dreams and hallucinations have been documented to be grounded in past real world experience, even when bizarre reworkings thereof form part of the content? Indeed, my six foot cockroach from my meningitis episode in 1994 is here to point and laugh at you in this regard. Would I have hallucinated a six foot cockroach without a prior background in invertebrate zoology? Methinks not.

Oh, and apparently you haven't learned from your own exposition above, that without data, you have nothing.



Ah, regurgitation of mythological assertion. Which means nothing. Because we've all seen mythology fanboys like you turn up here, presenting contradictory apologetic assertions about what said mythology is purportedly telling us. Which has much to do with the fact that mythology fanboys like you have no data to call upon.


Love the sound of the music of the spheres of your own verbal diarrhoea, don't you?

As those papers demonstrate, we're now in a position to determine with reliability said dream content from fMRI data. Which destroys your assertion.


Yes it is and you know it. You're doing nothing here but doubling down on your shit.

Quite simply, the data tells us that dreams arise because of neurochemical events in the brain during sleep, events that have both a chemical and electrical signature. Please explain to us all how this basic fact is purportedly "wrong", given that dreams can be influenced by the consumption of psychoactive substances before sleep, and have been documented being thus influenced? Indeed, a simple food such as cheese can exert a detectable effect, courtesy of the fact that cheese is rich in the amino acid tryptophan, and tryptophan is converted to serotonin in the brain, serotonin being, of course, a well known, well documented and powerful neurotransmitter.


Oh here we go with the mythology fanboy erection of "assumptions" ... seen plenty of this shit from creationists ...


This isn't an "assumption", it's a documented fact. this paper alone is but one of many documenting this, viz:




Except it isn't an "assumption", nor is it an error.

Here's a clue for you ... you would do better here if you had paid attention in classes devoted to the real world.

You are not actually making any discussion here, All i see you doing right now is just behaving like someone with ants in her pants. You arent calm.
Disagreeing on issues is not same as lacking proper way to communicate your view, and much word is not equivalent to communication.

Secondly, i actually wonder if you are responding to my points above or just using this discussion as a way to vet your personal beef. This makes you not to have a single point explaining or countering my explanation.

Until you seek calmness in expression of thoughts irrespective of how you are emotionally carried away, you will not see wisdom in what others expressed to you.

SO, YOU MUST THRIVE TO ALWAYS KEEP TO THE DISCUSSION SOLELY, Every other thing is secondary.

All you said up there doesnt answer or disprove my stand. as it has been from the beginning of our discussion. Always read patiently and pick line of thought, case construction and conclusion before commenting.

In my last post, I concluded with this

A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION made in the research is that ALL DREAMS COME FROM A BASE EXPERIENCE OR A PRIOR EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION, HENCE THE ESSENCE IT IS BENCHMARK WITH PREVIOUS DREAM RECORDS/INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO EXPLAIN.

That is the summation of all i said. Yet you responded with this post below from the author.

Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and its main oscillatory feature, frontal theta, have been related to the processing of recent emotional memories. As memories constitute much of the source material for our dreams, we explored the link between REM frontal theta and the memory sources of dreaming, so as to elucidate the brain activities behind the formation of dream content. Twenty participants were woken for dream reports in REM and slow wave sleep (SWS) while monitored using electroencephalography. Eighteen participants reported at least one REM dream and 14 at least one SWS dream, and they, and independent judges, subsequently compared their dream reports with log records of their previous daily experiences. The number of references to recent waking-life experiences in REM dreams was positively correlated with frontal theta activity in the REM sleep period. No such correlation was observed for older memories, nor for SWS dreams. The emotional intensity of recent waking-life experiences incorporated into dreams was higher than the emotional intensity of experiences that were not incorporated. These results suggest that the formation of wakefulness-related dream content is associated with REM theta activity, and accords with theories that dreaming reflects emotional memory processing taking place in REM sleep

Is there any difference in what you posted and my conclusion? It is a shot in the leg for you. Compare extract from your submission above.

Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and its main oscillatory feature, frontal theta, have been related to the processing of recent emotional memories. As memories constitute much of the source material for our dreams,

Eighteen participants reported at least one REM dream and 14 at least one SWS dream, and they, and independent judges, subsequently compared their dream reports with log records of their previous daily experiences.

This is to show you that all experiments stated above was subject to experiences, that statement is what explained all the researcher wanted to say/do and that is exactly what i pointed you to.

Look at his conclusion.

These results suggest that the formation of wakefulness-related dream content is associated with REM theta activity, and accords with theories that dreaming reflects emotional memory processing taking place in REM sleep

That is the result. He assumed that dreams are subjects to emotional memory (experiences). Infact read the researcher caveat below

No such correlation was observed for older memories

Hence recent experiences.

How true can this be for all dreams?
This is one reason i told you that is either you arent reading my submission or you are just on absolute road to nullify whatever is said. So, are all dreams based on past experiences? You know best as i suppose you dream too. That single assumption by the research is the limit of this research. Dont push it far for him.

It seems, In trying to defend your points, you arent careful on whatever track is taken to achieve this. Carefulness is important less you present yourself as not being truthful. And that carefulness is that, as far as science is concern, analyzing facts from imaging/image processing must be benchmark on experiences, history or past. There must be a template, but the truth is not all dreams have templates or from life experiences. That is what you are trying to disagree on and in essence you will surely disagree with the author you presented yourself.

Tamaratonye1:

Swell.

Meanwhile, here are a few questions you seem determined to continue ignoring:

[1] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
[2] How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?
[3] How many beliefs that form no part of your superstitious religious beliefs, do you hold that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for? (list them please)
[4] Since you insist on repeatedly and dishonestly rehashing an argumentum ignorantiam fallacy that attempts to reverse your burden of proof, please tell us what "proof" you have that unicorns and mermaids, and all other deities humans have ever created are not real?

That'll do for a start.... no more of your dishonest evasion now, you have come to me, so piss, or get off the pot!

Rabbi,
You have by the virtue of your wisdom, provided answers to all these via our discussion from the beginning. You are my source now in answering those questions. Go over all we said earlier you answers are there.

[1] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement. (source Tamaratonye1).
You also stated:
you cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.

Hence you agreed that there are things that exist beyond scientific tools and observations or testable by science. And objective evidence is not an umbrella for proving all issues. We have discussed this over and over here.

[2] How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?

You should know best. Since from your No 1 answer, some THINGS are beyond science tools/evidence, then we can ask, how many of those THINGS do you hold true even thought there are no objective evidence for them? Hence if objective evidence is your prima facie evidence, and holds through to nullify any non objective evidence, likewise the Scriptures are my authority and evidence on which platform all things are viewed. Have issue with that?

[3] How many beliefs that form no part of your superstitious religious beliefs, do you hold that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for? (list them please)

[/quote]
Well when you explain the bold, i may understand your question and respond.


[4] Since you insist on repeatedly and dishonestly rehashing an argumentum ignorantiam fallacy that attempts to reverse your burden of proof, please tell us what "proof" you have that unicorns and mermaids, and all other deities humans have ever created are not real?

You are not communicating here, just reliving your emotions via words. Not new though.

masterflowx:


After death...?

goes to fire and I go inside everlasting enjoyment.

Final answer!

Bros waiting that suya Guy DO you na?

TheSourcerer:
nothing happens just black , do you remember where you were before you were born?
There you go lad
The brain cannot fathom the idea of colour , feelings emotional or physical pain as this are only attributes of a living brain.

If this is what happens na to commit suicide be that na..

jerry447:

If this is what happens na to commit suicide be that na..

well that only makes you a coward some would say but it's actually a decision that is logically best to pick.
Modified: even the least Animal knows there's no afterlife or whatsoever but does that make them comit sucide in mass? In fact you only fear the'end of peace in the world ' when they discover there's no God , is to show you how deeply dependent on Religion ,you believe life cannot possibly be normal , but I tell you , it's the closest to peace and fulfilment we can achieve as a 3rd world country

LordReed:


From my understanding Krauss is indulging in a bit of word play. He is not saying there was an absolute nothing, in fact I have heard him say several times that such a nothing does not exist but a nothing into which quantum fluctuations birth virtual particles could in fact be the basis for the universe.

I'm not sure if it's indeed a word play or not, so I could be wrong, but I do know he experienced a backlash due to this exact statement.

Tamaratonye1:



Pity really, because Catholicism accepts evolution**. I think it would be pretty simple for a Jesuit apologist to slip the Big Bang/ great expansion into Catholic theology. (assuming that has not already bene done)

**I was taught that the church has no problem with evolution because we don't know the duration of each 'day' of creation. Could be billions of years for all we know. When I heard that at age 14 or 15, I remember thinking that explanation was pretty cunning and it left me with a feeling of unease.

The only reason the Catholic church started accepting evolution is to maintain its relevance. Prior to the growing evidence for evolution these guys had been totally against it or anything that involved science.
They are struggling to keep up with the modern, more educated world.
.

fieryy:


I'm not sure if it's indeed a word play or not, so I could be wrong, but I do know he experienced a backlash due to this exact statement.

It's why he got the backlash because it seemed like he was playing to the gallery.

Tamaratonye1:

Just wanted to add, is that a hard rule with no exceptions?

Because if you can propose special pleading for a god, then if that one rule can be broken, it can also be broken concerning the origin of this known universe.

Can you really though? The quantum field theory states the quantum state has the lowest possible energy with no physical particles, but then again the quantum vacuum state is not truly empty, but contains fleeting electromagnetic waves.

I think that's different from a god, who is portrayed as both the beginning and the end. .

Also, I find it very interesting that the old testament mentions other gods. Early Judaism did not deny the existence of other gods. In fact, israelites only became monotheists after the Babylonian Exile. It's easy to forget the Bible was written from a perspective of an Israelite, who saw their god as superior to others. The idea behind Judaism/Christianity is nothing new to mankind. It's something you can see all over the world.

The idea of gods might not be birthed from nothing, but definitely from human beings who were looking for a way to understand the world around them.


I'd love to type more, but bare with me, I'm lazy

Tamaratonye1:
What happens after death?

All we are is just what is in our brain, and when it dies that means we die. I don't see how all our data that makes up us is somehow transported from a damaged and rotting brain into an alternative reality where we continue to experience ourselves.

All explanations of an afterlife are all based off myths and magic, there is no actual scientific approach to how an afterlife would work. We know that nothing is accredited to magic; there is science behind things like echos, the tides, the sun rising, etc. So why would we believe that there is some magical way of us continuing to live on after death?

Nice write up... Nice see a woman thinking like this. Thumbs up

ElidaxZiel:


Hahahaha dear

Science is limited,.

Can you give me proofs that you dream at night

Can you tell me the location of your mind,, in your brain.


When you remember someone face,. When does the image appears in your brain ??

Science can not work with Spiritual realm

You are just plain ignorant

Scientists do not claim know all. There are still things that are still beyond the horizon. It doesn't mean that they won't be discovered.

The Question I have for you is that can you prove that the spiritual world exits?

Is that why you are an Atheist?

hupernikao:

Rabbi,
You have by the virtue of your wisdom, provided answers to all these via our discussion from the beginning. You are my source now in answering those questions. Go over all we said earlier you answers are there.

Blathering Bullshit! (First time I ever used the word "Blathering" and I have never seen such an appropriate opportunity. )

You have addressed nothing, your vapid rhetoric hand waving is meaningless. As is your dishonest denial objective scientific facts.

All you've done is to ignore and evade my questions. You refuse to have knowledge of your use of known logical fallacies, you won't respond to the question "what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?" with either a yes, no, or some evidence.

You have also not addressed your dishonest misrepresentation of atheism as a belief.

In short you have crossed the line from wilful ignorance, to deliberate mendacity.

Endless repetition won't make your claims any less facile, irrational or unevidenced. Your dishonest evasion will still be manifest for all to see, as are your lies making up straw man claims about science and assigning them to me.

hupernikao:
Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement. (source Tamaratonye1).
You also stated:
you cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.

Hence you agreed that there are things that exist beyond scientific tools and observations or testable by science. And objective evidence is not an umbrella for proving all issues. We have discussed this over and over here.

Yet you keep lying. I dont agree with your first conclusion and never did, and have said so multiple times, so you're a liar. NB this is not a contrary claim.

Stop lying please...

And yes there are things that are strictly subjective, and since your god idea remains completly unevidenced, your god idea remains strictly in the subjective realm, and since it is subjective I can dismiss your god idea simply because its completely subjective and unevidenced. Just like you can dismiss Santa Claus story not being real, even if you do not have any objective "evidence" that santa is NOT real.

While we're at it, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that anything exists beyond the natural physical world and universe?

Another question you have shamelessly avoided answering with even a pretence of candor.

hupernikao:

Well when you explain the bold, i may understand your question and respond.

We already know you only deny scientific facts that contradict your superstitious religious beliefs, like species evolution, and the bias of that is self evident, your embarrassing evasion is truly risible though, do you seriously expect me or anyone else to believe you don't know what religious beliefs are, or that you can't google the definition of superstitious? I'm actually embarrassed for you.

hupernikao:

You are not communicating here, just reliving your emotions via words. Not new though.

That's another risible lie from you, since the fallacies you used have been thoroughly explained to you, so your attempt at face saving here is truly cringeworthy. You have relentlessly tried to reverse the burden of proof for your claim a deity exists, by demanding atheists disprove it, yet are happy to disbelieve things you cannot disprove, which is the very definition of hypocrisy, and dishonest as well of course. I'd have more respect if you had the candour to admit it went over your head.

Let this sink in: Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is therefore ipso facto not a belief. As you claimed previously that "Atheism believes", If you start any assertion atheism or atheists believe, then it is demonstrably false. You can only assert what an atheist believes when they tell you, until then all you can correctly infer is that they do not believe in any deity or deities. This is not debatable, it is an objective fact, that a cursory online search can validate with the dictionary definition of atheism.

NB If you repeat the claim after your error has been explained it ceases to be an error, and becomes a lie, so don't start whining at being labelled mendacious if you do this, as I just happen to have zero tolerance for deliberate mendacity or willful ignorance.

I'm going to give you another chance to address this:

Tamaratonye1:

Swell.

Meanwhile, here are a few questions you seem determined to continue ignoring:

[1] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
[2] How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?
[3] How many beliefs that form no part of your superstitious religious beliefs, do you hold that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for? (list them please)
[4] Since you insist on repeatedly and dishonestly rehashing an argumentum ignorantiam fallacy that attempts to reverse your burden of proof, please tell us what "proof" you have that unicorns and mermaids, and all other deities humans have ever created are not real?

That'll do for a start.... no more of your dishonest evasion now, you have come to me, so piss, or get off the pot!

"You can only dodge for so long, but be sure your sins will find you out!"

SHALOM!

Jamahyel:

I was told just this morning that my landlord whom i saw last saturday is dead. Scares me that this life we are living can expire anytime.

WHAT YOU ARE EXPERIENCING IS ONE OF THE SEVENTEEN PATHS TO TRUE KNOWLEDGE: THE NOT-DOING "USING DEATH AS AN ADVISOR.

Unfortunately, you do not know to follow The Path to Its Conclusion, which is IMMORTALITY.

[See: JOURNEY TO IXTLAN: The Lessons of Don Juan, by Carlos Castaneda.]

Tamaratonye1:

What happens after death?

All we are is just what is in our brain, and when it dies that means we die. I don't see how all our data that makes up us is somehow transported from a damaged and rotting brain into an alternative reality where we continue to experience ourselves.

All explanations of an afterlife are all based off myths and magic, there is no actual scientific approach to how an afterlife would work. We know that nothing is accredited to magic; there is science behind things like echos, the tides, the sun rising, etc. So why would we believe that there is some magical way of us continuing to live on after death?

OYINBOS ARE THE MOST IGNORANT ON THE SPIRITUAL, BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST RACE TO TRY TO MURDER EVERYONE WITH SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE.

hupernikao:


It's so funny and sorry, that when science couldn't prove a thing, it then means it doesn't exist.

See, you can't box all things within the geometry of science.

ACTUALLY, WE CAN: WHAT THEN HAPPENS IS THAT CERTAIN PARTIES WHO DO NOT WANT CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE PUBLIC DOMAIN, DECEITFULLY INVALIDATE THAT PART OF SCIENCE.

hupernikao:


In all, It seems atheism at the end is not actually about questioning things to know but about concluding and judging all things in the court science. Sadly, that is what limits its research.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE THAT THE 1% WHO OWN 98% OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION SHOULD WANT KNOWLEDGE THAT COULD BE USED TO TAKE AWAY THEIR DOMINANCE, BECOME ACCESSIBLE TO THEIR SLAVES?

TheSourcerer:


nothing happens just black , do you remember where you were before you were born?
There you go lad
The brain cannot fathom the idea of colour , feelings emotional or physical pain because these only are funtions of a living brain.

THE MIND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BRAIN: WESTERN EDUCATION VERY CAREFULLY TEACHES PUPILS TO FALSELY BELIEVE THAT THEIR MIND IS A FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN.

These are the true functions of the Mind:

. THE TEN TALENTS OF POWER. (Matt. 25)

1. TOTAL RECALL.
2. EXTRASENSORY PERCEPTION.
3. TELEKINESIS.
4. TELEPORTATION.
5. TRANSLATION.
6-10. EVERLASTING LIFE.

Therefore, Western Schooling attacks the foundation of the Mind- which is TOTAL RECALL.

FORGETFULNESS IS REWARDED, WHILE TOTAL RECALL IS PUNISHED.

[See: THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY, by Bertrand Russell.
THE DELIBERATE DUMBING-DOWN OF AMERICA, by Charlotte Iserbyt.]

Once TOTAL RECALL is lost, all of the other TALENTS become compromised.

Without constant use, they atrophy, and become lost, then forgotten.

Tamaratonye1:

What happens after death?

All we are is just what is in our brain, and when it dies that means we die. I don't see how all our data that makes up us is somehow transported from a damaged and rotting brain into an alternative reality where we continue to experience ourselves.

OF COURSE "YOU DON'T SEE;" THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED "BLINDNESS!"

The Brain merely channels sense data to the Mind, and commands into the Nervous System. It is not the Mind, nor any part of the Mind.

People lose the ability to access their Memories, and implement their Will, when their Brains are damaged, because they have been taught to rely upon their Brains, and limit themselves to their Brains, to the extent that their Minds think that they are Brains.

KENNETH COPELAND repeated a nearly funny joke about two CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS who had been badgering a man to join them.

"Does your daddy still think he's sick?" they asked his nine-year old daughter, when they visited his home.

"Naw," she drawled. "He thinks he's daid, now!"

The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE Belief System says that EVERYTHING IS IMAGINARY, AND DOES NOT REALLY EXIST. Including SIN, SICKNESS, and DEATH.

[See: SCIENCE AND HEALTH: With Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy.]

MARY BAKER EDDY sounded nonsensical, because her Oyinbo Cavewoman language does not have words for what she knew.

Everything that we perceive is perceived only because we think that we can perceive it- but these are not ordinary thoughts.

A Hypnotist at a party had a man under his influence do various stunts. Then he "suggested" to him that he could no longer see his own daughter, who was in the room with them.

After demonstrating to the guests, that he could not perceive his daughter, he finally asked him to read the inscription on the back of a watch he held out in front of him.

The man was annoyed that his time was being wasted doing something so simple, but easily read the inscription on the back of the watch, which was passed around, so that everyone could see that he got it right.

What made this a remarkable feat, was that the Hypnotist had his daughter stand between him and the watch.

[See: THE HUNDREDFOLD PRINCIPLE, by Kenneth Copeland.
THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE, by Michael Talbot.]

A simple exercise will prove that we have existence apart from our Brains.

(1) RESOLVE THAT, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN YOUR DREAMS, WHEN YOU FALL ASLEEP TONIGHT, YOU WILL LOOK AT YOUR HANDS.

(2) WHEN YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY LOOKED AT YOUR HANDS WHILE DREAMING (WHICH TAKES AS LONG AS IT TAKES- IMMEDIATELY, DAYS, OR WEEKS- BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS. BY SCANNING AROUND YOURSELF CONSTANTLY, WITHOUT FIXATING ON ANYTHING.

(3) WHEN YOU CAN COMFORTABLY MANAGE YOUR SURROUNDINGS, MOVE YOURSELF AROUND BY INTENTION.

(TRYING TO WALK NORMALLY WILL NOT WORK.)

DELIBERATELY GAZE AT THINGS IN YOUR DREAM, TO MAKE THEM CHANGE, CHANGING YOUR DREAM INTO SOMETHING ELSE.

(4) WHEN YOU HAVE PRACTICED CHANGING YOUR DREAMS OFTEN ENOUGH, YOU WILL ONE DAY HAVE A DREAM IN WHICH YOU SEE SOMEONE ASLEEP ON BED.

THIS TURNS OUT TO BE YOU.

ON NO ACCOUNT INTERFERE WITH YOUR SLEEPING BODY!

Turn away, and find useful things to do.

Verify that your DREAMING BODY is really in the real World.

THIS FUCKING DANGEROUS EXERCISE PROVES THAT WE ARE NOT BRAINS, BECAUSE THIS IS THE BODY THAT SURVIVES INTO THE AFTERLIFE.

[See: THE ART OF DREAMING, by Carlos Castaneda.]

Tamaratonye1:


All explanations of an afterlife are all based off myths and magic, there is no actual scientific approach to how an afterlife would work. We know that nothing is accredited to magic; there is science behind things like echos, the tides, the sun rising, etc. So why would we believe that there is some magical way of us continuing to live on after death?

YOU ARE A FOOL TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO HOW AN AFTERLIFE WOULD WORK- JUST SAY THAT YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THAT SCIENCE!

Did you even pass GCE?

oaroloye:

. THE THREE LAWS OF MOTION. Isaac Newton

ALL OBJECTS REMAIN
IN A STATE OF REST,
OR UNIFORM MOTION
IN A STRAIGHT LINE,
UNLESS ACTED UPON BY
UNBALANCED FORCES.

2. THE RATE OF
CHANGE OF MOMENTUM
IS PROPORTIONAL TO
THE FORCE APPLIED.

3. ACTION AND REACTION
ARE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE.

. DIANETICS AXIOMS.

THE Source of Life is a static
of peculiar and particular properties

[A LIFE STATIC has no size,
no shape, no mass, no temperature,
no frequency, nor any other physical property.]

2. At least a portion of the static
called life is impinged upon
the Physical Universe.
3. That portion
of the Static of Life
which is impinged upon
the Physical Universe
has for its Dynamic Goal
SURVIVAL and ONLY Survival.
4. The Physical Universe
is reducible to motion of energy
operating in Space through Time.
5. That portion of the Static of Life
concerned with the Life Organisms
of the Physical Universe
is concerned WHOLLY with MOTION.

22. Theta and Thought
are similar orders of static.
23. All Thought is concerned
with Motion.
26. Thought is accomplished
by Theta Facsimiles
of Physical Universe,
Entities or Actions.
99. Theta Facsimiles can recombine
into new symbols.
100. Language is the symbolization
of effort.
101. Language depends for its force
upon the force which accompanied
its definition.

[Note: Counter-effort, not language, is aberrative.]

109. Behavior is modified
by Counter-Efforts which have
impinged on the Organism.
115. SELF-DETERMINISM is
the Theta Control of the Organism.
116. A SELF-DETERMINED EFFORT
is that Counter-Effort
which has been received
into the Organism in the Past
and integrated
into the organism
for its Conscious Use.
116. A SELF-DETERMINED EFFORT is
that Counter-Effort which has been
received into the Organism in the Past
and integrated into the organism
for its Conscious Use.
117. The components of Self-Determinism
are AFFINITY, COMMUNICATION,
and REALITY.

[THE EIGHT DYNAMICS: The Eight Levels
on which we Exist:

1. Self; 2. Family; 3. Groups;
4. All Mankind; 5. All Living Things;
6. The MEST (Matter, Energy, Space, Time-
i.e. PHYSICAL) Universe; 7. Spirits; 8. God.]

118. An Organism cannot
become aberrated unless
it has AGREED-UPON that Aberration,
has been IN COMMUNICATION WITH
a Source of Aberration,
and has HAD AFFINITY FOR
the Aberrator.
119. Agreement with any Source,
contra- or pro-Survival,
postulates a New Reality
for the organism.
121. Every Thought has been preceded
by Physical Action.
122. The Mind does with Thought
as it has done with entities in the Physical Universe.
127. All perceptions reaching
the organism's sense channels
are recorded and stored by Theta Facsimile.

Definition: Perception is the process
of recording data from
the Physical Universe and storing it
as a Theta Facsimile.

Definition: Recall is the process
of regaining Perceptions.
128. Any organism can recall
everything which it has perceived.

. SCIENTOLOGY AXIOMS 1-12.

Life is basically a Static.

Definition: a Life Static has
no mass,
no motion, no wavelength,
no location in space or in time.
It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

2. The Static is capable of Considerations,
Postulates, and Opinions.
3. Space, Energy, Objects, Form,
and Time are the result of Considerations
made and/or agreed upon or not
by the Static,
and are perceived solely because the Static considers that it can perceive them.
4. Space is a Viewpoint of Dimension.
5. Energy consists of
postulated particles
in Space.
6. Objects consist of grouped particles
and solids.
7. Time is basically a postulate
that Space and particles will persist.
8. The apparency of Time is
the change of position of particles in space.
9. Change is the primary
manifestation of Time.
10. The Highest Purpose in this Universe
is the Creation of an Effect.

11. THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN
CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE
ARE FOUR-FOLD.

(a) AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence,
and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation
and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations
in that it does not contain survival.

(b) ALTER-IS-NESS is the Consideration which introduces change
and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-IS-NESS
to obtain persistency.

(c) IS-NESS is an apparency of existence brought about
by the continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS.
This is called, when agreed upon, Reality.

(d) NOT-IS-NESS is the effort
to handle IS-NESS
by reducing its condition
through the use of force.
It is an apparency
and cannot entirely
vanquish an IS-NESS.

12. The Primary Condition
of any Universe is that
two Spaces, Energies,
or Objects must not
occupy the same Space.
When this condition is violated
[Perfect Duplicate]
the Apparency of any Universe
or any part thereof is nulled.

. SCIENTOLOGY AXIOMS 41-50.

41. That into which
Alter-Is-ness is introduced
becomes a Problem.
42. MEST (Matter, Energy, Space, Time)
persists because it is a Problem.
43. Time is the primary source of Untruth.
It is a problem because it contains Alter-Is-ness.
44. Theta (the static) has no location in Matter, Energy,
Space or Time.
It is capable of consideration.
45. Theta can consider itself
to be placed, at which moment
It becomes placed,
and to that degree a problem.
46. Theta can become a Problem
by its considerations,
but Then becomes MEST.
A problem is to some degree MEST.
MEST is a problem.
47. Theta can resolve problems.
48. Life is a Game wherein Theta
as the Static
solves the Problems of Theta as MEST.
49. To solve any Problem it is only necessary to become
Theta, the Solver,
rather than Theta, the Problem.
50. Theta as MEST must contain considerations
which are Lies.

52. MEST persists and solidifies
to the degree that it is
not granted life.

. THE EIGHT DYNAMICS:

1. SELF; 2. FAMILY; 3. GROUPS; 4. ALL MANKIND; 5. ALL LIVING THINGS; 6. THE MEST (Matter, Energy, Space, Time - i.e. PHYSICAL) UNIVERSE; 32. SPIRITS; 40. GOD.

. THE SIX LEVELS OF EXISTENCE.

1. BELIEFS; 2. THOUGHTS; 3. WORDS; 4. PHYSICAL ACTIONS; 5. POSTULATES; 6. TOTAL UNDERSTANDING.

. THE EIGHT LEVELS OF LIFE FORCE.

1. ALPHA, the 7th Heaven.
2. BETA, the 6th Heaven.
3. GAMMA, the 5th Heaven.
4. DELTA, the 4th Heaven.
5. EPSILON, the 3rd Heaven.
6. ZETA, the 2nd Heaven.
7. ETA, the 1st Heaven.
8. THETA, the Earth Universe.

[See: SCIENTOLOGY 0-8: The Book of Basics, by L. Ron Hubbard.]

. THE NINE TIME VECTORS.

PAST to PAST; PAST to PRESENT; PAST to FUTURE.
PRESENT to PAST; PRESENT to PRESENT; PRESENT to FUTURE.
FUTURE to PAST; FUTURE to PRESENT; FUTURE to FUTURE.

[See: EXCALIBUR REVISITED, by Geoffrey Filbert.]

LIFE DOES NOT OBEY ISAAC NEWTON'S THREE LAWS OF MOTION!

It does not stay still; It does not keep moving in the same straight lines.

Life does not speed up nor slow down in proportion to forces making It change velocity.

It does not react to every action.

oaroloye:

. DEUTERONOMY 8:3-6.

3. And He humbled thee,
and suffered thee to hunger,
and fed thee with Manna,
which thou knewest not,
neither did thy fathers know;
that He might
make thee know that

"MAN DOTH NOT
LIVE BY BREAD ONLY
BUT BY EVERY (WORD)
THAT PROCEEDETH
OUT OF THE MOUTH
OF THE LORD
DOTH MAN LIVE."

4. Thy raiment waxed
not old
upon thee,
neither did thy foot swell,
these forty years.
5. Thou shalt also consider
in thine heart,

"THAT, AS A MAN
CHASTENETH HIS SON,
SO THE LORD THY GOD
CHASTENETH THEE."

6. Therefore thou shalt keep
The Commandments of
The LORD thy God,
to walk in His Ways,
and to fear Him.

.. JOHN 6:63.

"It is the spirit
that quickeneth;
the flesh profiteth nothing:
the Words that I Speak
unto you,
they are spirit,
and they are life."

oaroloye:

. JOHN 8:51.

51. "Verily, verily,
I Say unto you,

'IF A MAN
KEEP MY SAYING,
HE SHALL NEVER
SEE DEATH.' "

. JOHN 12:44-50.

44. Jesus cried and Said,

“He that believeth on me,
believeth not on me,
but on Him that sent me.
45. “And he that seeth me
seeth Him that sent me.
46. “I am come a Light
into the World,
that whosoever believeth on me
should not abide in Darkness.
47. “And if any man hear my Words,
and believe not,
I judge him not:
for I came not to judge the World,
but to save the World.
48. “He that rejecteth me,
and receiveth not my Words,
hath One that judgeth him:
The Word that I have Spoken,
the Same shall judge him
in The Last Day.
49. “For I have not
Spoken of myself;
but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a Commandment,
what I should Say,
and what I should Speak.
50. “And I know that
His Commandment
is Life Everlasting:
whatsoever I Speak therefore,
even as The Father Said unto me,
so I Speak."

God's Commandments pertain to living I'm the seven superior Universes called "Heaven."

WHEN ANY CREATURE IS IS BORN, A MANIFESTATION OF GOD: THE CREATOR IMPRINTS IT WITH THE COMMANDS TO ITS KIND, THAT ENABLE IT TO DO THE THINGS OF ITS KIND, AND CONNECTS IT WITH A FEED OF BALLS OF LIVING FIRE, THAT CONTINUALLY IMPACT ON ITS SOUL BODY AT A POINT SPECIFIC TO ITS KIND, THAT MAKE IT LIVE.

The efficient reception and utilization of this Spiritual Energy maintains the elasticity, flexibility, and resilience of the Soul Body, but inefficiency causes It to become rigid, inflexible, and brittle, such that It cracks open and disgorges It's contents- which is immediate Death.

The Feed disengages, and manifests an Entity that requires a TOTAL RECALL account of how It used the Life Energy given to It.

If that Soul does not produce this complete, undistorted, unbroken account in a speedy fashion, the Entity cuts into the Soul Body and extracts the data by Brute Force.

This critically damages the Soul Body, so that it cannot create the AfterLife Body.

Hostile Scavenger Spirit Beings come and destroy the Soul Body, in the process of extracting Its remaining Life Energies- a thing they must do for their own Survival.

They are in an advanced state of deterioration themselves, and this is the only way for them to get the Spiritual Energy they require.

This is the Fate of most creatures that die.

The only way to escape It is to attain TOTAL RECALL some time before one dies- the sooner the better.

There is a simple, though tedious, technique for doing this. For instance, spending 20 minutes a day, remembering everything one knows about everyone one ever met, will cause one to attain TOTAL RECALL in under a year.

This also proves that one's Life Memory cannot be stored in the Brain- there is not enough room!

If one does with such ability, the Accountant-Entity does not destroy one's Soul Body, but departs, satisfied.

Then, one's Soul Body extracts the last Life Energies from every cell, and uses It to create a Spirit Energy Body, capable of housing one's Mind, Memories, and Personality.

This Body goes either to Heaven, to Paradise, or to Hell, depending upon Its Spiritual Affiliations.

YOUR LANDLORD'S SOUL HAS SURELY BEEN DESTROYED- BUT THERE IS STILL TIME TO SAVE YOURS.

[See: THE FIRE FROM WITHIN, by Carlos Castaneda.
THE POWER OF SILENCE, by Carlos Castaneda.]