E pain am 😆
You dey form intelligent & mature, but u dey support terrorists wey enslave your ancestors...🤡

Try get sense

TenQ:

Since you can't respond to questions intelligently, your are hereby ignored until you exhibit some maturity.

Good night!

LordReed:


I wrote "seem to be prescient", having increased probability of predictions coming to be seems to be prescient. I am not saying they've acquired magical powers nor am I saying it is the case for everyone who uses psychedelics.

What do you mean by increased probability of predictions? What type of predictions?

LordReed:

See this article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/19/brain-scans-reveal-mind-opening-response-to-psychedelic-drug-trip-lsd-ketamine-psilocybin

This study is nonsense and the claim it makes is so simultaneously vague and general that it’s meaningless.
The summary of the study:
Psychedelic drugs induce 'heightened state of consciousness', brain scans show.

What does “heightened state of consciousness” mean? It’s such a vague statement that the meaning will depend on the readers biases.
The study itself is based on brain scan showing random activity. Since when did the brain not show random activity? I could hook a crack head up to the same brain scanner and claim they are in a “heightened state of consciousness “. I could hook Tony Montana, high on uncut cocaine, up to the same brain scanner and claim he is in a “heightened state of consciousness”. The study is meaningless babble based on perceptions of a drugged brain and silly opinions.

LordReed:


See this too: https://www.scribd.com/audiobook/592294888/DMT-and-the-Soul-of-Prophecy-A-New-Science-of-Spiritual-Revelation-in-the-Hebrew-Bible

This book also rubbish because it’s based on the ignorant idea that the authors of the Bible were actually seeing visions. Let’s examine the claims of the book:

Naturally occurring DMT may produce prophecy-like states of consciousness and thus represent a bridge between biology and religious experience.

The above is a nonsensical statement. What is a “prophecy like state of consciousness”?
Religious experience, like all human experience is inherently biological, so what bridge is he looking for?

• Reveals the striking similarities between the visions of the Hebrew prophets and the DMT state described by Strassman’s research volunteers.

Again what makes him think the Hebrew “prophets” were seeing visions? Allegorical writings that are misunderstood being erroneously labeled as visions does not support the drugged state of dmt users.

• Explains how prophetic and psychedelic states may share biological mechanisms

Agains what is the prophetic state that he speaks of?

• Presents a new top-down “theoneurological” model of spiritual experience

Just makes nonsensical claims that can’t be supported. Besides, there is no need for the term “theoneurological” because all ideas and experience include “Theo” are basically “neurological”.

TenQ:

Emotional outburst!

You're projecting again.

You called me a Liar

Well, your claim was a lie. Here:

TenQ:

Let's put your definition to test:

The definition of atheism is not mine, it is the dictionary definition, compiled from common usage. Now to be fair to you, you may not have intended to obfuscate matters and tag it "my" definition. But it was still a lie nonetheless.

Quick question: You do know how dictionaries are compiled don't you?

Does EVERYONE agree with the definition of Woman as
'an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. '

Lol, I never said EVERYONE, and I never brought the definition of woman up at all. You did! Do you not know what the word "MOST" means, or that dictionary definitions reflect what MOST people think a word means? Are you starting to see a pattern here? Can you now see how someone might tag you as a liar with posts like this?

Your claim: (is like)
Anyone who doesn't agree with this stupid definition is a Liar!
Think please.

Oh dear…

1. Your claim that the definition of atheism I provided was "my definition" was a lie. Intentional or not, it was a lie. If you honestly don't intend to ascribe claims to me that I didn't make, then I truly apologize if calling you a liar hurt your feels.

2. You are the one insisting your personal subjective definition is right and the dictionary is wrong .

Here then is the dictionary definition of the word atheism.

Atheism
noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It doesn’t dawn on you that there are two ways to make a proof.
The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.

As I explained, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. Do you know what this fallacy means? I have hyperlinked an explanation for you here. The burden of proof lies with your claim. I have made no claim.

There is not one single Christian who says that God is a Physical Being He is not subject to the natural/physical laws.

You don't simply get to assert this, you will have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence. I could as easily claim all mermaids are invisible, and cannot be detected by any empirical means, then insist you disprove they exist. Would you really accept this as evidence for mermaids? I think not. Thus the bias of your position is as manifest as your irrational repetition of this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You brought your claims here, you will have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for them, or I will remain disbelieving. And then, we will go back and forth.... and back and forth on this until we clock the 1000th page .

I said objective evidence is not possible for spiritual things, you state the contrary (in red)

Another lie, I did not make any claims about what is and is not possible for spiritual beings, since I don't believe they are possible until someone can demonstrate they are. Again existence is defined as what is objectively real. If you can offer nothing approaching objective evidence for your deity, then I don't believe it is real. Why would I?

It is your turn to prove that no spirit dimension or deities exist (please don't forget to recognise that Christians say they are spirits)

No it isn't, since I have not claimed they don't exist, only that I don't believe your unevidenced claim they do, and you are again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to try and irrationally reverse the burden of proof.

In your wisdom, every non objective evidence is a figment of imagination.

I started with objective evidence as that is how existence is defined.

Existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

If you insist your deity exists outside of your imagination, then demonstrate something to support your claim.

For the record TenQ, you also apply this to all the deities you don't believe are real, and not just deities either. There is no objective evidence that unicorns exist. I assume you don't believe unicorns are real?

It just shows how myopic your reasoning is

Again you are skirting into ad hominem insults, and need I remind you that you brought your beliefs here because you wanted a debate. You are the one applying a standard to your deity you don't apply to others, so calling me myopic for applying the same standard for belief to all claims is also pretty hilarious .

Looks like you just read a book on Fallacies in Arguments and in every opportunity, whether true or not

By all means point out anywhere where I have falsely claimed you have used a common logical fallacy, otherwise this rhetoric is pretty weak.

you just want to show you've been to the library.

Ad hominem fallacy, again. Why does it bother you that I go to the library? Haven't you ever been to a library before? . Please leave the personal insults alone. If you disagree with a claim or argument then say why.

TenQ:

And when I accuse you of being emotional, you take it unkindly. Can't you address issues without name calling and slanderous remarks?

You are the one taking things personal here. The truth is that your arguments so far strike me as dishonest - even though it might not be intentional on your part. And whenever I try to call your attention to how you come across, you start throwing tantrums.

Check carefully, you haven't addressed the question at all!

Check carefully, I have:

Dream17:
Now you seem to be claiming that dogs both can and cannot believe in a deity, so lets clarify. I don't believe that a dog has the ability to comprehend the concept of deity, if this is the case then it follows they lack such a belief, and thus are atheistic, and they need not have reasoned or made any choice in order to lack such a belief. I on the other hand am also an atheist, as I lack belief in any deity or deities, and I have made choices and used reason to arrive at that lack of theistic belief. Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief, I suggest you get over it - since you have ignored my multiple requests to explain how you think choices and reason negate me simply lacking belief in any deity or deities.

Please try learning how to read to understand your co-discussant, as opposed to merely reading to make any kind of response to them.

a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.

Well that's an unevidenced subjective claim of course, but if it were valid, then they quite demonstrably would lack theistic belief.

you think animals can form a belief about a deity

Er.. I made no such claim.

Is it a pretty ironic use of an ad hominem fallacy that there is a difference between Animals having a Belief and Animals NOT having a Belief in Deities, ?

No, your ad hominem assertion had nothing to do with that, here it is again then:

TenQ:

You talk too much without thinking

Do you have difficulties following a simple line of conversation? This is an honest inquiry and not an insult by the way, because I can't fathom how you continuously manage to misread and misunderstand my posts so easily. Please learn to take your time reading my posts before you offer a response. Don't just type a response because you want to be argumentative for the sake of it - as that will be debating in bad faith.

TenQ:

If you had just followed the logic rather than repeat a rhetoric...

Your posts are riddled with known fallacies in informal logic. Please explain very specifically where JustAnotherGuy's post violated any principle of logic, as I can see none? You asserted there could be no objective or physical test for your deity, hence as JAG pointed out, any claims by theists that a deity intervened in the physical world, miracles and prayers for example, would be false by your own rationale. It is your claim that is pure rhetoric, as your posts including so many logical fallacies are by defection - irrational, and your only response to this fact is to use ad hominem fallacies whenever I point it out. Priceless…

TenQ:

1. Can you show me how to identify male dogs from among female dogs?
2. If your biology is correct with dogs, why should it be wrong with humans?
3. When archaeologists see the skeletons of an adult male, would it be defined male or female by social construct or through biology?
4. Does majority of people on the earth define gender by biology or by social construct?
5. Can I give myself the social construct of a 6 year old white American at the American Embassy even though my parents (biology) are black Nigerians?

If you are TRUTHFUL, answer these 5 questions!

If you ask me, his madness is getting to the level of insanity!

Can you show me how to identify male dogs from among female dogs?
YES

If your biology is correct with dogs, why should it be wrong with humans?
IT’s Not.

Does majority of people on the earth define gender by biology or by social construct?
Faulty appeal to popularity. What the majority of people believe is not necessarily important at all.

Can I give myself the social construct of a 6 year old white American at the American Embassy even though my parents (biology) are black Africans?
Yes. And they will lock you away for your delusional behavior.

Did you not understand my previous post. Perhaps you sould read it again.

TenQ:

If you ask me, his madness is getting to the level of insanity!

Read his post, your questions have zero relevance, and again you have simply posted a knee jerk response that doesn't seem to understand anything he posted, and simply consists of a string of questions that are straw man fallacies. You really need to read more carefully before responding. If you want to start a thread on gender dysphoria and identity then do so. You introduced the concept merely to challenge the fact that dictionary definitions reflect common usage, and not what you personally want words to mean. Just as you did with the word atheism.

TenQ:

I quoted you extensively in replying to LordReed.
And let me quote you here again , make your deductions

As expected, all my texts you quoted perfectly align with all I've been saying. Nothing showed anywhere I said other dimensions don't exist, I never said anything like that. I kept repeating the word "objects" and relating all my discussion to objects alone.
I went further to say 4D is likely space time.

LordReed who saw my replies to you from the sides kept correcting you on what I said.
The one time I asked Google, it understood me and brought a positive search result.
My first question to Chatgpt on this, it gave me a coherent response and then agreed with me.

I'll assume finally you understood all I've been saying, if so you're welcome anyway.

TenQ:

You have spoken some wisdom here!
Cheers

Alright thanks.
For the first time, you understood me on your first attempt.
I hope our discussion would no longer run into any problem henceforth.

LordReed:

Can you give an example of how you think people are attacking god(s)?

Affirming, especially rigorously he doesn't exist is one easy example and some really take this personal like their survival in life run on their denial of God's existence. These folks really get mad at you if you say he does.
They hate it and get pissed when you reference God in a conversation.
Some live their lives advocating for any ground against God. They try hard to oppose and debunk anything that has been used to support the existence of God while they promote anything that might support the inexistence of God.

AudioMonkey:


Affirming, especially rigorously he doesn't exist is one easy example and some really take this personal like their survival in life run on their denial of God's existence. These folks really get mad at you if you say he does.
They hate it and get pissed when you reference God in a conversation.
Some live their lives advocating for any ground against God. They try hard to oppose and debunk anything that has been used to support the existence of God while they promote anything that might support the inexistence of God.

I meant an example of someone actually doing what you are saying.

KnownUnknown:


What do you mean by increased probability of predictions? What type of predictions?



This study is nonsense and the claim it makes is so simultaneously vague and general that it’s meaningless.
The summary of the study:
Psychedelic drugs induce 'heightened state of consciousness', brain scans show.

What does “heightened state of consciousness” mean? It’s such a vague statement that the meaning will depend on the readers biases.
The study itself is based on brain scan showing random activity. Since when did the brain not show random activity? I could hook a crack head up to the same brain scanner and claim they are in a “heightened state of consciousness “. I could hook Tony Montana, high on uncut cocaine, up to the same brain scanner and claim he is in a “heightened state of consciousness”. The study is meaningless babble based on perceptions of a drugged brain and silly opinions.



This book also rubbish because it’s based on the ignorant idea that the authors of the Bible were actually seeing visions. Let’s examine the claims of the book:

Naturally occurring DMT may produce prophecy-like states of consciousness and thus represent a bridge between biology and religious experience.

The above is a nonsensical statement. What is a “prophecy like state of consciousness”?
Religious experience, like all human experience is inherently biological, so what bridge is he looking for?

• Reveals the striking similarities between the visions of the Hebrew prophets and the DMT state described by Strassman’s research volunteers.

Again what makes him think the Hebrew “prophets” were seeing visions? Allegorical writings that are misunderstood being erroneously labeled as visions does not support the drugged state of dmt users.

• Explains how prophetic and psychedelic states may share biological mechanisms

Agains what is the prophetic state that he speaks of?

• Presents a new top-down “theoneurological” model of spiritual experience

Just makes nonsensical claims that can’t be supported. Besides, there is no need for the term “theoneurological” because all ideas and experience include “Theo” are basically “neurological”.

Sure it might all be nonsense or there might be something there, let's find out that's all I am saying.

LordReed:


Sure it might all be nonsense or there might be something there, let's find out that's all I am saying.

to add, some folks have created their masterpiece art under the influence of such drugs. Some claim that their creativity halts when the effect of the drug fades away. I wonder how we as humans wil be able to define higher and lower states of consciousness relative to other humans.

TenQ:

Since you can't respond to questions intelligently, your are hereby ignored until you exhibit some maturity.

Good night!

Please explain what is immature or unintelligent in that post? It seems to me you have simply evaded a question, because you know the answer does not support the superstitious and unevidenced conclusions you are making. However a more salient question that you can't answer is why anyone should believe your unevidenced assumptions deities demons and angels are hiding in an unseen dimension. This is pure fantasy on your part, and again you have admitted you have only your own subjective opinion to support this assumption. You argue like someone who has no understanding of logical discourse. Everytime you make a claim, and someone challenges it, you immediately assume that they are making a contrary claim. Just as with your erroneous claims about atheism, you don't seem to understand that one can withhold belief form a claim, without making a contrary claim. Though to be fair this is a very common error among many of the religious apologists I've encountered.

So, coming back to these points:

Christians have always spoken about God, Angels, Demons and the Spiritual Realm which in this case is at dimensions higher than 3 dimensions.

Leaving aside the evidence for this extra dimension, your assertion that deities, angles and demons are hiding in there is pure unevidenced assumption. You have admitted yourself you can offer nothing but a bare subjective claim to support it. You might as well be claiming it's full of unicorns or dragons for all the credence the claim carries.

Atheists understandably think that any dimension higher than 3D is a figment of imagination.

I am an atheist and I don't think this, I believe what is supported by sufficient objective evidence, if I disbelieve something, this does not necessarily mean am able to make a contrary claim, since this will carry an epistemological burden of proof, that I may not be able to satisfy. Atheism makes no claims, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, though atheists as individuals may of course make claims.

It must be a mistake.
Time is not a Spatial Dimension!
The emphasis was on spatial dimensions

Maybe next time, try not to claim you didn't say X, when you clearly said X? I mean you can see how that can be extremely confusing; right?:

Original post before modification

TenQ:


Note:
Time is NOT a dimension: time is a measure of intervals between events in 1D, 2D, 3D , 4D space

Your response when I called you out

TenQ:

I never said that time wasn't a dimension perhaps you can quote where i said that?
I wouldn't even make a statement like that!

TenQ:
a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.

You are a little too quick to make sweeping generalisations about "all animals", since your unevidenced claim is already being contradicted by some research studies. While there is a lot more to understand, your hubris is misplaced. I will show screenshots only since apparently I risk getting banned for posting links. This is Dream17, just in case you're wondering.

LordReed:

I meant an example of someone actually doing what you are saying.

You can get more than enough examples of folks like this in atheists communities like the Atheist Republic group on SM.

LordReed:


LoLz! I am an agnostic atheist, my stance on the matter shouldn't be surprising.

That is you strongly hate what you don't believe exists. May God soon deliver you and answer the prayer of your family.

Bossly:
E pain am 😆
You dey form intelligent & mature, but u dey support terrorists wey enslave your ancestors...🤡

Try get sense

That's another person you are trolling.
Let me advertise you for those that ll troll you.
You v called me a boy, jobless etc. All that described your existence cos you are a mumu.
I don't want to be accused that a sister is responsible for your ruin.
I ll give you N500 to buy sniper and end your misery.
Send me your account number.

AudioMonkey:
Stop putting words in my mouth. You misunderstand the concepts and again misunderstood the language employed in explaining the concepts. Who does that?
For the 1000th time, I never ever said only 3D is real. All the dimensions are real.
0D (I can't say, perhaps this dimension is the "nothing" from which God created every other thing)
1D (maybe forces, I don't care to know RN)
2D (maybe motion, I don't GAF what it is RN)
3D (dimension for physical objects like I've been saying)
4D (likely space - time dimension, like I said previously) etc
Now, what I said is, as far as physical objects are concerned, they exist in the 3D. Nothing like 4D tesseract or 2D shape objects or 1D line. Every real life object is a full-fledged 3D object no matter how microscopic or how much you slice it or merge them, you will get a 3D object as a final result always.
Nonetheless, given the free world we live in, where people can say things the way they want it said, people still choose to relate the terms 0D/1D/2D/4D to physical objects.
If that is the case, then we can have 0D/1D/2D/4D "view/perception" of a physical 3D object or 0D/1D/2D/4D "representation" of a physical object on paper for various purposes but in real life, physical objects exist and remain as 3D objects.
I am calling on LordReed as my witness as I correct you and explain things to you for the 1000th time.

Now before I leave, guess what TenQ, I engaged Chatgpt, asking the same 2D shape question. At first, nigga mentioned flat shapes with big area and "tiny thickness". Then I asked him, if these "2D" flat shapes still managed to necessarily possess thickness, though tiny, why did he call them 2D? To my surprise, it immediately apologized and admitted I was right.
That has got me wondering how on earth, an ordinary AI still in early stages of development go come get sense pass you in this world.
Initially when I came into the thread, I was excited but now, you disappoint me, son.

---

---

---

NNTR:
You ducked my three questions above there, along with the ones before them

There are 11 dimensions actually, at least, that the universe operates on. Eleven, because the jury are still out on the exact number

The three dimension state, that we human beings, operate here, on earth, is very limited, restricted and restrictive. As for, the 5th dimension, its a multi-dimensional reality, with a high occult definition.

^{cc A001, Leiylau}

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

---

---

NNTR:
As I said the jury is still out about the exact number of dimensions existing in the universe, to operate in.

If you believe that the universe is limited to 12 dimensions, then you make make laugh with your '12 months and 12 hour clock and 12 zodiac and 12 disciples and 12 tribes of Israel and 12 lead ecg' rigmarole jagbajantis. Sorry bro

John 20:19
That Sunday evening the disciples were meeting behind locked doors
because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders.
Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them!
“Peace be with you,” He said.

Them, the 3 questions are stale, so instead, knack your teeth on these questions here below:

#1. When Jesus came through the walls into the room, as seen in John 20:19 above, what specific dimension was He operating in that made Him enter the room without using the door?
#2. What dimension are celestial beings operating in, when they make visitations to earth or when they appear to human beings?
#3. What dimension is God operating in?
#4. What dimension are Disney cartoon characters operating in?
#5. What dimension are Marvel comic characters operating in?

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

---

---

---

TenQ:
Christians have always spoken about God, Angels, Demons and the Spiritual Realm which in this case is at dimensions higher than 3 dimensions. We cannot tell if their dimensions is the 4th or 5th or 6th....1000th.

TenQ:
Atheists understandably think that any dimension higher than 3D is a figment of imagination.

The beauty of prerogative

TenQ:
Question:
1. Is it reasonable to conclude unequivocally that higher dimensions than 3D do NOT exist in the Universe?

Yes, without a shadow of doubt, three are dimensions other than one, two and three dimensions

TenQ:
2. What kind of experiments would you advise scientists in the 2D world conduct to prove the existence of the 3D space?

Measure for length, breath and height or width

TenQ:
3. Let's assume that by some Stroke of massive intelligence, scientists in the 2D space have perfect scientific knowledge of their space, would this knowledge be adequate in the 3D space?

Unfortunately, you somehow inadvertently are referring to scientists on marvel comics here. If you want to stretch this, they might on paper, have knowledge adequate in the 3D space

TenQ:
4. We know that a person in a higher dimension can interact with those in the lower dimensions: is the converse possible?

2 Kings 6:16-17
16Elisha answered,
“Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”
17Then Elisha prayed and said,
“LORD, please, open his eyes that he may see.”
And the LORD opened the servants eyes
and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire surrounding Elisha.

Hmm, yes, it is possible, so far the higher dimension celestial beings, downgrade themselves to the level that terrestrial being can physically be aware of them. Or better still, if terrestrial being are upgraded enough just as, done in 2 Kings 6:16-17 above, to physically see celestial being

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

AudioMonkey:


You can get more than enough examples of folks like this in atheists communities like the Atheist Republic group on SM.

Unless you can give me a particular example it just seems like you are saying anyone disagreeing that a god exists is hating on god. I don't see how pointing out that this or that concept of a god cannot exist equates to hating god. I mean people vehemently debate all sorts of things even fictional ones. You should see the fierce debates that erupt about movies, games, cartoons and the like, do you think such vehement debates indicate hatred for the fictional characters involved or just emotional investment into whatever point someone is making?

Donate more tears😭
You crane remains ruined.

O boy, your wretched ass is cursed!

joblessFOOL:

That's another person you are trolling.
Let me advertise you for those that ll troll you.
You v called me a boy, jobless etc. All that described your existence cos you are a mumu.
I don't want to be accused that a sister is responsible for your ruin.
I ll give you N500 to buy sniper and end your misery.
Send me your account number.

Wilgrea7:


A great morning to you as well.



Once again, Interesting theory. I can't argue much against your belief, as we both lack evidence for or against the position to either substantiate or refute it. So it more or less falls into the category of an unfalsifiable claim.

However there's something I wanted to point out. When thinking about the idea of something like a 3.2D or 3.4D object, in relation to how you described us humans, I don't think such quasi dimensions can truly exist. Let me try to explain.

Your idea seems to focus not on the actual simultaneous existence in multiple 3d planes, which would make up 4d. Instead, it focuses more on the object's ability to experience these parallel planes by something you called "disposition of spiritual matters". While the term seems rather ambiguous, and more like a blanket term for any sort of claimed unverified knowledge, I won't touch on that for now.

As a simple analogy, take 2 cubes, one measuring 5x4x10 cm, and another measuring 5x4x6 cm. We'll agree that both objects are very much 3d objects, although one is shorter than the other.

Now imagine these cubes were somehow sentient. One might notice that the other seems "longer" than it, seems it seemingly occupies more space in 3 dimensions. But it wouldn't mean the shorter one is any less of a 3d being. Even if a different shape, like a cylinder or prism were to be brought into the equation, they would still be regarded as fully 3d shapes, even though their structure would be quite different.

Similarly, even if we were to assume a 4th dimension exists, and we call it this "spiritual" plane. People's experience of other parts of this dimension by virtue of something like a "disposition of spiritual matters" would only translate to them being able to notice more of the same 4d space, and not necessarily being in a quasi fractional form of 3d.

Just as someone with partial blindless would still very much be a 3d being despite being only able to see a tiny portion of what normal people see, a 4d being would still very much be 4d, despite only having a fraction of the experience other alleged 4d beings have.

I don't know the sense in which he talks about fractions of dimensions but I suspect that he is using it in the wrong way. However the matter of fractional dimensions is actually mathematically sound. They are called Fractals, and they are studied in Mathematics a lot in the last few decades,

LordReed:


Sure it might all be nonsense or there might be something there, let's find out that's all I am saying.

There is nothing there. All they boil down to are extraordinary claims that can’t be verified or vague claims that mean 10 different things to 10 different people.

LordReed:


Unless you can give me a particular example it just seems like you are saying anyone disagreeing that a god exists is hating on god. I don't see how pointing out that this or that concept of a god cannot exist equates to hating god. I mean people vehemently debate all sorts of things even fictional ones. You should see the fierce debates that erupt about movies, games, cartoons and the like, do you think such vehement debates indicate hatred for the fictional characters involved or just emotional investment into whatever point someone is making?

Yea, fierce debates arise on many topics all the time but you know this is different case just as we have built our discussion hitherto and I gave the DNA analogy.
How can someone claim to seek evidence for God while they continue looking/advocating evidences against same God and deride/ridicule same God concept?
How can someone claim to seek evidence for God but affirm he doesn't exist and tag those who say otherwise delusional?
How can you seek evidence for God when you're already sure he doesn't exist, concluded he doesn't exist and claim you have evidences he doesn't exist?
Like I said, some just hate this whole God stuff not like they sincerely seek any evidence, they blaspheme, they're much ok when you keep the God thing out of their way and they get mad when you keep parading the God discussion in their face.

AudioMonkey:

Yea, fierce debates arise on many topics all the time but you know this is different case just as we have built our discussion hitherto and I gave the DNA analogy.
How can someone claim to seek evidence for God while they continue looking/advocating evidences against same God and deride/ridicule same God concept?
How can someone claim to seek evidence for God but affirm he doesn't exist and tag those who say otherwise delusional?
How can you seek evidence for God when you're already sure he doesn't exist, concluded he doesn't exist and claim you have evidences he doesn't exist?
Like I said, some just hate this whole God stuff not like they sincerely seek any evidence, they blaspheme, they're much ok when you keep the God thing out of their way and they get mad when you keep parading the God discussion in their face.

You totally can. You can reject a concept of a god while still holding out rhat you could find once that you can accept. Even you do that since you don't believe in all concepts of a god.

LoL @ blaspheme. That such a made up offense. What is so special about a god that it cannot withstand being made fun of or even insulted?

BTW why would you continue keep parading the god discussion in their face?

A001:

I don't do beliefs. But I posit higher dimensions exist beyond the grasp of the average human. And yes, you can call them phenomena.

As the saying goes: "What we know is a drop; what we don't know is an ocean" — Isaac Newton

Will you agree that
1. Just as NDE experiences, Spiritual experiences are SUBJECTIVE experiences
2. Just as NDE experiences are real to the person experiencing it, Spiritual experiences are REAL to those who experience them
3. Just as there is no physical proof of NDE experiences, there are no physical proofs of Spiritual

Now to those on the outside especially skeptics:
Would their best approach be to
1. Take those experiences with a grain of salt
OR
2. Begin to fight and dispute that such experiences can only be real if they can be proved physically.

The second approach seem to the the disposition of many Atheists on Nairaland.


You will note here:
We were expected to discuss the Philosophy of Spatial Dimensions and extending it to what our expectations would be if we have dimensions higher than 3D UNFORTUNATELY, most of your Atheist friends have concentrated just on one aspect of the talk : to establish that the spirit realm is nonsensical.

For me, it is understandable if an atheist say that higher dimensions may exist that defy our 3D space understanding, however they don't beleive it has to do with invisible beings called spirits. Alas, this is Nairaland!

LordReed:


You totally can. You can reject a concept of a god while still holding out rhat you could find once that you can accept. Even you do that since you don't believe in all concepts of a god.

LoL @ blaspheme. That such a made up offense. What is so special about a god that it cannot withstand being made fun of or even insulted?

BTW why would you continue keep parading the god discussion in their face?

Exactly the point I been making.
After you deduced I exist while you seek more evidence to reinforce the deductions but at the same time you keep insulting me, affirming I don't exist and propagating different grounds why I don't exist. Isn't that so contradictory, messed up and confusing? That's the reason why I tell you it's not a case of all these folks "sincerely" seeking for any evidence. If you do in your own case, you can only speak for yourself.

In an atheist community, under the generic tag of being atheist, you'd discover different sub categories - the 'sincerely' confused/neutral ones in doubt, who're 'sincerely' seeking 'sincere' answers.
You'd see ex theists now antagonists.
You'd see those who just hate to hear you say 'God', perhaps hurt and bitter because of hard life and bad experiences.
You'd see the jesters who don't GAF nor care to know if God exist or not but they tease/bait you to give them evidences so they could have something new to mock and laugh about.
You'd also see those who don't like the restrictions in religion or they see religion as the root cause of world's chaos, they think their lives have been full and great without any God.

TenQ:

Will you agree that
1. Just as NDE experiences, Spiritual experiences are SUBJECTIVE experiences
2. Just as NDE experiences are real to the person experiencing it, Spiritual experiences are REAL to those who experience them
3. Just as there is no physical proof of NDE experiences, there are no physical proofs of Spiritual

Yes, NDEs are subjective experiences, at least for now. But they may not be for long when scientists and engineers design devices that can record and store memories (including dreams) in the brain digitally and play them.

Already, Elon Musk and some MIT scientists and engineers have recorded key breakthroughs in this area.

Yes, spiritual experiences are subjective as what looks spiritual to you may not seem so to another person. A person due to their limitations in intelligence and knowledge can call mysterious events they don't understand spiritual, but those versed in that subject would know they're purely physical phenomena whose occurrence is guided by certain laws of nature, all within the domain of sciences.

Apart from superstitions, what you call spiritual is simply unexplained science. Just give it time; scientists will unravel it.

In the olden days, generally diseases such as cold, malaria, headache, etc. were regarded as spiritual and the handiwork of demons, until some centuries ago that scientists like Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur made groundbreaking discoveries in microbial science, paving the way for key advancements in modern medical sciences.

Today, only the unintelligent ones see diseases as spiritual and demonic manifestations; the majority of humans now regard diseases scientifically.

Also, in the past, natural phenomena such as lightning, thunder, rainfall, flooding, earthquake, and eclipse were generally regarded as spiritual and the handiwork of one deity or the other.

But after humans understood these phenomena better using critical thinking, philosophy, and the scientific method, they're now generally seen as natural phenomena which can be predicted and tamed scientifically.

Nothing spiritual or supernatural in all these.

There are several other examples as well.

Things religious people like you call spiritual now are not really spiritual or supernatural in any way. It's because your knowledge is limited on the subject since you can't reason beyond the ridiculous stories in the Bible, which are mere tales for children.

Scientists will unravel all these things in the future.

TenQ:

Now to those on the outside especially skeptics:
Would their best approach be to
1. Take those experiences with a grain of salt
OR
2. Begin to fight and dispute that such experiences can only be real if they can be proved physically.

The second approach seem to the the disposition of many Atheists on Nairaland.


You will note here:
We were expected to discuss the Philosophy of Spatial Dimensions and extending it to what our expectations would be if we have dimensions higher than 3D UNFORTUNATELY, most of your Atheist friends have concentrated just on one aspect of the talk : to establish that the spirit realm is nonsensical.

For me, it is understandable if an atheist say that higher dimensions may exist that defy our 3D space understanding, however they don't beleive it has to do with invisible beings called spirits. Alas, this is Nairaland!

Judging by the dubious, fraudulent nature of Nigerian pastors and the ridiculous stories in the Bible, it's understandable to call the spirit realm nonsensical.

When your Bible has too many lies and half-truths, don't blame intelligent people for calling its content nonsensical.

The blame lies in your god and the fictitious Jesus Christ invented by Rome.

An intelligent person shouldn't believe anything the Bible says being a book of lies.

If not that I've seen what you, religious people, call the spirit realm a number of times, and that it has a scientific basis (theoretical at this stage), I won't be saying higher dimensions, which are non-physical in nature, exist.

Based on my experience and research over the years, I know they exist. But my experience is subjective, and an intelligent person doesn't base their beliefs and convictions on the subjective experiences of other people, like you, religious people, do.

So, the skeptical approach is the best. However, it's more reasonable to keep an open mind, use the Socratic method, and adopt agnosticism than atheism.

An intelligent person would say God or higher dimensions don't exist. But a highly intelligent and wiser person would say there's no evidence for the existence of God or higher dimensions.

The latter approach is the most reasonable because it allows for openmindedness.

AudioMonkey:


Exactly the point I been making.
After you deduced I exist while you seek more evidence to reinforce the deductions but at the same time you keep insulting me, affirming I don't exist and propagating different grounds why I don't exist. Isn't that so contradictory, messed up and confusing? That's the reason why I tell you it's not a case of all these folks "sincerely" seeking for any evidence. If you do in your own case, you can only speak for yourself.

In an atheist community, under the generic tag of being atheist, you'd discover different sub categories - the 'sincerely' confused/neutral ones in doubt, who're 'sincerely' seeking 'sincere' answers.
You'd see ex theists now antagonists.
You'd see those who just hate to hear you say 'God', perhaps hurt and bitter because of hard life and bad experiences.
You'd see the jesters who don't GAF nor care to know if God exist or not but they tease/bait you to give them evidences so they could have something new to mock and laugh about.
You'd also see those who don't like the restrictions in religion or they see religion as the root cause of world's chaos, they think their lives have been full and great without any God.

You are sounding like you think there is only a singular concept of god but there is more than 1, there are many thousand concepts of a god.

I am asking you what is wrong in mocking a god? If I find the concept of a god comical why is it wrong for me to mock such a concept?

LordReed:


You are sounding like you think there is only a singular concept of god but there is more than 1, there are many thousand concepts of a god.

I am asking you what is wrong in mocking a god? If I find the concept of a god comical why is it wrong for me to mock such a concept?

Of course, there can never be anything wrong in mocking a god if that gives you the evidence you claim to seek about whatever your concept of god/God is.