₦airaland Forum

^^^ Listen up Son - I am really trying to refer you to my earlier post where i described what divine justice might be like and how no human being can comprehend the entire significance of any event in history given Karmaic realities.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5006474#msg5006474 date=1259344531]@deep sight. . .
Which one be rough neck again? What does it mean?[/quote]You dey too rugged. I dey fear you.

Do you really work as a lawyer in telecoms?

Yep, and i can tell you its terrific!


AND STOP THIS IMAGINATION THAT A SUPREME BEING MUST OR MUST NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR PERCEPTIONS OF LOVE AND JUSTICE. IS THAT NOT A CONTRADICTION? THE SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE ALONE SHOULD TELL YOU THAT YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS MANKIND IS LIMITED. IF ANY BEING IS SAID TO BE SUPREME OVER TIME AND SPACE DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ASSESS HIM OR HIS ACTIONS OR INACTIONS BASED ON YOUR LIMITED PERCEPTIUONS?

wirinet:
Most of us have had telepathic experience one time or the other in our lives, and i would be surprised if you had not had one (although most people might attribute it to one religious experience or the other). It usually occurs among people who are emotionally attached.

Hi there! Great rally we have going right? I am pleased with the standard of this discussion.

But have a look at the highlighted portion in the quote above.

Why do you suppose that telepathic connections (by your very own words) occur more between people who are emotionally attached?

Again, I believe that you have played into my hands. Your statement betrays the heart (“emotion”) as being involved in telepathy!

Now you cannot deny the obvious inference unless you are prepared to push further the boundaries of reason, and classify emotions as a physical thing too!

Thus I ask you: are emotions a physical thing?

In answering this question, please do not mix things up: I am not asking if the source of emotions is physical, I am asking if the emotions themselves are physical things. ALSO I am NOT asking if you can observe physical symptoms of emotions within the body or the brain – I AM ASKING IF YOU WILL CATEGORIZE EMOTIONS THEMSELVES AS A PHYSICAL THING.

1. If they are physical – can you explain what aspect of physics can analyze their frequencies, or their core nature, and most importantly, their existent rationale.


2. If emotions are NOT physical – then again you have accepted the existence of non-physical things.


3. Can you explain what part of physics may observe the threads along which telepathic vibrations move, which you have already conceded are most likely threads of emotion between people?


4. In this respect there is a deep truth that becomes apparent: which deconstructs you entire surmise: namely that emotional “highways” (permit the word) exist between people as you have clearly suggested, then of course the question remains: what creates such emotional threads, along which telepathic vibrations may move. NOTE PARTICULARLY that such an emotional connection is not person A or person B but exists BETWEEN them! You have subtly hinted at the existence of such a thread – TELL ME NOW IF YOU WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS PHYSICAL! This for me is yet another conclusive acceptance from you of the existence of non-physical things!


5. Does the word “emotion” not have a direct association with the word “spirit?”

Finally I must draw your attention to the fact that you entirely refused to address your earlier concession that the brain is merely a tool?

Wirinet. . . it’s quite clear now. . . you can’t deny it . . .

banom:
Honestly Deap Sight is a big messed asshole guy, I decided to keep distance with him from the very first day he subtly insulted my brain power, i was like hush, personalLy i am a peace loving guy, and i don't like taking issues too serious with people,  I let go without saying a word,

His problem is that he is too judgmental, his type will normally go home and comfort himself with his selfish thought of being knowledgeable enough,
he has a tendency of foolishly thinking that he is more intelligent than the others  around him, and i pray he would never come in contact with a the " Stupid Smart"  perhaps that will be the day he will learn that not every one who appears dumb is a fool, and that a true intelligent man neve look down on people ( no matter what)

The day i knew that Deap Sight needed some urgent Psycho help is the day i saw a thread he opened asking nairaland members  who makes more sense among , Davidylan, Noetic and Sharkez, The thought came to me that Deap sight will normally go to bed and say, " I AM THE EMPIRICAL GENIUS OF NAIRALAND"

Easy up dude, i was jus trying to have some fun in that thread. . . your assumptions about me are wrong o. . . i dey very simple o. . .

Anyhow, if i offend you before, no vex, i apologize, you know how arguments are, we can easily get carried away. . . apology accepted?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5006169#msg5006169 date=1259340628]And you forgot to quote the part where he could have and shoulda stopped it. . .no one has provided any reason why he couldn't and shouldn't.[/quote]Who told you he did not stop it? How dyu know if it would not still be on today. . . ehn? Ehn?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5006169#msg5006169 date=1259340628]Your 5 year old kid who you're legally responsible for brings in a baby right there in your living room and repeatedly mutilates and stabs the infant[/quote]LOL! Remember those "Chucky" horror movies. . .! I was rolling on the floor at the imagination of a 5 year old doin that. . . just an aside, don't mind me. . .

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5006169#msg5006169 date=1259340628]Where do you practice your law, in the jungle?[/quote]Executive Director in Multibillion $ Global Telecomms actually. . .

_{Sorry! Could not resist that!}

Ganjaseed:
Folks.
I rejected to buy a handkerchief after a church service and the usher reported me to the pastor and the pastor was very angry with my comments on his practice of handkerchief sales. I wouldn't have reacted that way but the usher pushed it too much making me believe am committing a certain sin by not buying the handkerchief from her.

This is the scenario-: I was invited to a certain church in Amsterdam and after the service the ushers where selling handkerchief prayed for by the pastore of the church and that people should rub it on their faces and they will be highly favoured. I told the Usher i do not want to buy the handkerchief because i do not even believe in your pastor not to talk of the piece of cloth she is selling, she was very angry about what I said, but after some more talking about the so called favoured handkerchief, I advised her to look for a place where God and his word is being preached not where men make merchandise of the gospel. I thought the whole thing was over after that, before i could get my kinds ready to go home some one tapped me on the shoulder and said the pastor want to speak with you, I followed her to the pastore who was still attending to other people, and the lady said to him that is the man, and the pastor asked me sir what is your problem? I told him I have no problem sir. And he asked me what did you say to one of the Usher about the handkerchief I blessed? I gently told him, I simply refused to buy it because I do not believe in you nor the handkerchief. Everybody standing by where very surprised hearing me saying that and the pastor did not find it funny at all he made some silly statement, and I told him He is a peddler of the gospel and besides he needs to go to bible school to learn some more because he is feeding the flocks with junk spiritual food, then he started insulating me in Ghana language which I did not understand anyway but somebody told me what the pastor said in his language. He actually insult me with his village god (just like when it is said "make AMADIOHA fire you) I could not stop laughing when I heard that. this is the kind of christian society we have over here in Europe.

Brethren, have I really done anything wrong by refusing the handkerchief?

Lol! Laugh no go kill me ooooooo!!!!


Your only mistake ws in going to the damn church in teh first place!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=357796.msg5005968#msg5005968 date=1259338298]Somewhere in your mind you think the whole universe and its workings are geared towards one outcome = Life on earth.[/quote]And who the hell told you life exists only on earth? Who's being arrogant now - your scientist's have explored perhaps 0.[/b]0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % percent of the universe and you imagine life exists only on earth

[b]Joker!!!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5005816#msg5005816 date=1259336862]@banom.
Abeg I'm going to sleep abeg. These apologists never cease to amaze me.

Why edit out a statement central to the idea being presented in a quote and then come ranting for explanations? And bleating contradiction.

Time and TIME again we see this on NL. . .it was expected. When they've got no valid point after running out of lame excuses like light being an inanimate object and people re-incarnating as goats to god being a mad scientist performing cosmic experiments they then turn to outright LIES and DECEIT. . .how shamefully disgusting is that?[/quote]Oh please! Don’t you even be having a laugh: if any one has been ratted out on this thread it has been YOU, YOU AND YOU AGAIN.

Do NOT dare talk about editing any quote: I quoted that which was relevant to the point I was making – since when do we quote irrelevant stuff like God created Humans. . .a moot point taught in nursery school which we all know already is the bloody premise for discussion already? ? ? ? Take time o.

YOU are the ONLY ONE who has been caught out on several self contradictions on this thread, and you are still yapping?

If you could not read here are your concessions of defeat and contradictions all over again –

There is no disputing humans caused the genocide. . .

You accept that humans were responsible. . . and then you talk about another person (God) being LEGALLY responsible! I certainly hope you are not into law practice, because the Judges would tear you to pieces for such chicanery. . . how can you hold someone responsible for something you have already declared another person to be DIRECTLY responsible for? ? ? ?

Take time o.

Next thing I know you will be committing genocide yourself and asking God why he has not spared YOUR victims. Or declaring that YOUR genocide is evidence that he does not exist.

Good grief, someone get me outta here! The standard is too bloody low!

Mr. Atheists – Welcome Tudor to your standard & CLASS! I have seen better even on this forum!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=357796.msg5003218#msg5003218 date=1259286001]Well gee since the purpose of rock is to support life the all rocks in the universe including floating asteroids are there to support life. . . .don't be absurd pleaase![/quote]Joker. . . could the earth exist without the gravitational and other forces of the rest of the universe. . . could the sun exist without the larger galactic system around it?

Of course everythging is damn interlinked towards life.

Abeg, go and complete your reasoning before coming back to me jaare.

Now you are venturing into absolute derangement Tudor: Listen to yourself:

In one breath you said -

There is no disputing humans caused the genocide. . .nobody said it was carried out by aliens.

And then in another breath -

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5005384#msg5005384 date=1259331794]God bears responsibility for rwanda. . .even legally he's liable![/quote]I hope you can see that you are on a state bordering on psychosis. How do you reconcile the above statements? ? ? ? In one breath humans are responsible. In another breath God is responsible.

Even more insane is the fact that you state, ever so flagrantly that God bears responsibility, and is legally liable – forgetting that according to you, he does not exist!

I am sure you have noticed I prefer a higher standard of debate than this crap.

You are offering me trash Tudor, and I will not countenance this schizophrenic series of admissions of defeat and self contradictions that you have served up. Go call in someone else to present your points coherently for you.

bawomolo:
how is the statement that God GAVE US freewill a self-evident act? How do you know freewill was granted by a God?

Since Freewill exists, then it is given, or came from whatever element caused man to exist. You know very well of my description of God as the "first cause", so you should understand why i regard him as being the progenitor of man's freewill.

bawomolo:
I'm not arguing freewill (although that can be argued)

Really? It can be argued?And with what will did you decide to become an atheist? An enslaved will?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5003193#msg5003193 date=1259285580]More cock and bull!

What decisions did the 1 million victims make? Oh I guess they all consciously decided to be killed. . .bullshit![/quote]Seems to me you did not hear the term "karma across successive life-times" (not generations) which i used? ? ? ?

Anyhow, when i am done with my book, which is a mix of fact and fictioon and deals with conflict situations in africa, i will let you have a copy. Maybe, just maybe it will put things in perspective for you.

I am certain the question of Karma is too deep for you Tudor - so let's just stick with your already accepted concession of defeat: namely that humans and not God are responsible for Rwanda.

I would have thought that would be obvious to a kindergarten pupil?

Banom! them don unbann you!

@ Wirinet - i deeply appreciate your exhaustive response.

I do feel, however, that it is riddled with several self-contraditory statements.

Essentially I am still struggling to put across these two essentials -

1. Physical things do not in themselves possess the quality of being and cannot be an end in themselves for any purposes AND -

2. Complex systems which deliver any function or functions logically cannot themselves be the recipient of such functions.

And these two propositions are borne out by contradictions contained in your response, as I will show below.

You wrote –

There is no argument that the brain is a tool that man uses to apprehend and comprehend the world, just like the leg is a tool for moving around the world

- Thus accepting my earlier proposition that the brain is a tool only for man to apprehend the world as I stated here:

Deep Sight:
I would have thought that the brain is a TOOL via which man apprehends the world.

Your dilemma is compounded when your words continue. You did not just state that the brain is a tool, you went ahead to state that the brain is a tool THAT MAN USES to apprehend and comprehend the world!

In this you have very explicitly distinguished between the man and the brain, stating that the man exists, and that [/b]he uses the brain as a tool to apprehend and comprehend the world.[/b]

Frankly, I could not have put it better myself! Dear wirinet, although you struggle to draw the conclusion that all things are physical only, you have landed by stating clearly that the highest of all physical things – the brain – is only a tool!

For me, I needn’t go further – save to ask: whose tool? A tool for whom, or what?

Yes – it is a tool for the substantiate inner being.

Given your own words, you have conclusively ceded the debate, and your acceptance of the brain as a tool only proves in absolute terms my 1st proposition above that: Physical things do not in themselves possess the quality of being and cannot be an end in themselves for any purposes. . .! And this dovetails into the second proposition – that – Complex systems which deliver any function or functions logically cannot themselves be the recipient of such functions!!!

The existence of the real man; that is – the inner being referred to above is sealed again by your own very words –

The brain (along with the spinal cord) is the only organ that can process information, other organ like the eyes, tongues ears, etc are only receptors of information.

now about telepathy and intuition, i know that our brains under certain states can act as receiver and transmitter of thought waves. Thought waves being similar to very weak radio waves. It is similar to the way normal radio waves are modulated, transmitted recieved demodulated and decoded by our radio or Tv. So under certain states of mind a person can transmit thought waves and also under another state of mind someone other brains can demodulate and decode the thought waves and thereby see or hear or feel another person's thought

I hope before I write anything you have already seen the second contradiction in your surmise. You have referred to organs such as the ears, eyes, nose etc as receptors of information. This is accurate. You have then gone ahead to express a belief in the existenece of thought waves, and indicated that such could be passed from one person to another.

I ask –

1. Are thought waves a physical thing, such as sound waves?


2. If they are a physical thing, then what organ acts as the receptor for such waves to be transmitted to the brain? If other physical information require “organs” to transmit such information to the brain, the surely there must be an organ that transmits such thought waves to the brain?

In either event you are presented with a conundrum: a dilemma – because if thought waves are NOT physical then you have accepted the existence of non-physical things, and if thought waves are physical, then you may have to show what organs receive such waves, transmit them to the brain and also show that in terms of physics, such waves can be observed independently and analyzed just like information contained in all other physical waves.

These two contradictions, particularly the first one, were, in my view, inevitable because when you seek to propound something that does not add up, there would always be these major-pit falls.

On the strength of your very own words, I can safely conclude that you have ceded that the man is not the brain, which is a tool only for the man. I can also conclude from your very words that you accede to the existence of non – physical things, though you appear at odds admitting this!

^^^ Following your reasoning God must catch all persons trying to commit suicide by jumping from a cliff. He must catch them mid-air, and thereby save them.

That's bull. So long as you are capable of making decisions you will be responsible for your actions.

Period.

Besides you have already conceded above that humans and not God, are responsible for all that.

So you no get case again, matter don end!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=357796.msg5003071#msg5003071 date=1259283358]The ecosystem is a complex system of diff components that totally dependent on one another. . .remove the sun no ecosystem, remove water nada, take away life and ecosystem is dead. The earth changes and becomes something else.

Life is a component of the ecosystem and along with other components works towards maintaining the ecosystem.

And I repeat again, the ecosystem was formed by the developing earth. The ecosystem through its biotic and abiotic component make up the earth.

Wat escapism?[/quote]THIS IS STILL ESCAPISM AND IT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TODAY.

Read what you have written. You said that life works towards maintaining the ecosystem. I positively assert that the ecosystem supports and maintains LIFE.

What is the purpose of a rock? Is it the purpose of life to support a rock or the purpose of the rock to support life? Don’t be absurd.

You speak as though the earth is a being that was desperately in need of LIFE to survive. If that’s truly the case then every planet out there would develop life, as they would need it to maintain balance!

No way: no retraction – there can be no ecosystem without the crowning component: LIFE, and as such it is only logical to accept that all things were driving towards LIFE.

Indeed this only makes sense given that LIFE is the end product of the evolving phases of the earth. It makes further sense when we realize that man is the last creature to appear on the earth in terms of evolutionary categorization of broad species. Thus logically it is obvious that this was the goal: this is where the whole damn story was heading towards, it was heading to a state capable of supporting not just life, but man. Damn, even natural selection reflects this!

Tudor it is not too late to escape with your dignity intact. Fact remains that you have since accepted the truth that the earth’s systems were geared towards life, and that is that.

Given that, we can conclude that the Brain as a system supports LIFE and not the other way round.

GBAM, GBAM, GBOGA!!!

I will not entertain any escapism. You stated yourself clearly that everything is geared towards balancing the ecosystem.

Life is the cardinal and central aspect of an ecosystem - that's why you cannot speak of ecosystems on mars.

This from wikipedia prove it:

Central to the ecosystem concept is the idea that living organisms interact with every other element in their local environment. Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, stated: "Any unit that includes all of the organisms (ie: the "community" in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (ie: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system is an ecosystem."[2]

Thus your concession of defeat remains intact since you concluded yourself that every thing is geared towards the ecosystem - thus life, as life is its cardinal aspect!


No escape, the case is closaed via your own words, Tudor!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5002847#msg5002847 date=1259278265]There is no disputing humans caused the genocide. . .nobody said it was carried out by aliens.[/quote]Thanks for conceding defeat.

Gudnite!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5002847#msg5002847 date=1259278265]And why not? Does he not love us anymore?[/quote]And how are you qualified to determin what a transcendent being MUST DO.

Oh, i forgot, having discovered atheism, you are a transcendent being yourself, and accordingly you should know?

In what ways can you imagine that you can determine how a trascenmdent being should show his love?

What if such a being is not even interested in showing love at that point in time for reasons best known to him. Oh, don't worry, Tudor is on hand to correct him!

Get real man! And the guinea pigs arguments is just that: you cannot determine for the abrahamic God his pourposes since he is a dictator!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5002813#msg5002813 date=1259277531]Have you read the New Testament at all? If not I suggest you do.[/quote]Not even in the New Testament does the Abrahamic God relinquish his prerogative to do exactly as he pleases without reference to ANYONE.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5002813#msg5002813 date=1259277531]Ha you mean the almost 1 million people including children and infants were killed because of karma? I guess the one day old baby who was murdered was done for by his repeated painful kicking of his mama during pregnancy. . .bad kid![/quote]Meaningless. Doctrines of Karma across the world have always presupposed that it is carried from one lifetime to the next. So kids are not exempt.

^^^ Listen up son - what the hell does the earth need any of those systems for? What does it need "balance" for? Would it matter to the earth if it was a bare empty cold rock? Would the earth feel sad, that it was a bare empty cold rock? The planet Uranus Venus may not have Earth's systems - any problem there? ? ?

I am amused that you say that everything is geared towards balancing the earth and its ecosystem - because in saying so you shoot yourself in the foot: what is an ecosystem? An eco-system contains LIFE and CREATURES.

Thus, you have again ceded the debate by stating that everything is geared towards supporting life!

Thanks for throwing in the Towel!

_{*singing* oh, sweet victory. . . .}

What is the meaning of this? ? ? ? ?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5002466#msg5002466 date=1259271893]@Deep sight.
I'm begining to sound like a fucking broken record! This thread tackles the idea of the all good, loving, powerful, merciful etc Abrahamic God.[/quote]Wrong there! You cannot succeed in that line of reasoning because the Abrahamic God AS DEFINED is an absolute law unto himself and does whatsoever he pleases for reasons best known to him without reference to ANYONE.

Do NOT pretend that the Abrahamic God has always been presented as merciful and loving. You have read the Old Testament and you are aware that he is presented as very harsh indeed. He does what he pleases. Accordingly the genocide in Rwanda CANNOT be used to disprove the existence of the Abrahamic God.

U simply look at this issue from the perspective of the perpetrators of the genocide blaming their free will when instead it should be viewed through the eyes of the helpless victims

What do you mean helpless victims? How do you know if such is not being visited on them on account of past deeds? (Karma/ You reap what you sow). If you are not the supreme being yourself, you can never have a compound view of the fate that each person deserves.

I am certain you are aware that Tpia asked for the history of that crisis to demonstrate the HUMAN causes.

There is no way in hell you can dispute that HUMANS wreck the world.

AND there is also NO WAY you can show that if God exists, he must per force stop humans from doing shit.

How do you know God's mentality? For what bigger purposes do you know such an entity may allow such to persist. What the hell - how do you know we aren't guinea pigs in a cosmic experiment? ? ? ?

Of course the zebra whose family has been eaten by Lions may also blame God and declare that since Lions ate his family, then God does not exist - he is only a Zebra, of course, and could never have the head-space to understand that such tragic events are necessary for population control and a balanced eco-system.

Tudor, are you playing the Zebra here?

Oh PUHLEEEEAAASSEE!

That is a bad example because th ereverse argument is too ovbious namely that the earth has those systems to support LIFE, not itself. Ditto for the universe.

Try again.

Tudorm you are YET to address THIS -

Thus I make this rational contention to you: wherever a complex system exists and delivers a function or functions, that system is not the recipient in itself of the functions.

Disprove it.

You can only have a point if you can show me that the Brain is conscious of itself as a creature called a brain, whose work is to control something called a man.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=357796.msg5002047#msg5002047 date=1259265924]The sense of being is definately your subconscious[/quote]I hope you realize with this you have ceded the debate.

Men! Some parents waste school fees sha!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5001740#msg5001740 date=1259262210]capital M.O.R.O.N!!!

Are light & darkness OBJECTS?

I laugh at this mummu!!! mummu!!! mummu!!! mummu!!! mumuu!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. . . . An illiterate who is both happy and confident in her ignorance cum STUPIDITY. . . Ode oshi!

Now answer the op and tell us where god was during the genocide. . .you must tell us today![/quote]Frankly i am deeply unimpressed Tudor. Are you suggesting to me that a supreme being must intervene in every act of human barbarity in order to prove that he exists?

You pick up your gun and shoot your brother dead because your wife fancies him and then you turn around to ask why a supreme being did not stop you from doing that?

That borders on a mental problem Tudor.

Besides its the laziest thing a person can say. Humankind committed a monstrosity. Oh, dear, rather than learn the lessons and try to improve we sit around like spoiled brats asking why the supreme being did not avert it? Or concluding that if he did not avert it, then he must not exist. That logic deserves a 0/10 score. It’s infantile.

Has it occurred to you that you need to learn from your mistakes? Could that be one reason why a supreme being might leave you to wallow in those mistakes?

Of course, you would get nothing from the explanation i tried to offer you above: given that you are too drunk on your great discovery of atheism to see the simple fact that men are developing beings who like children make mistakes and need to improve. BUT TO YOU THIS SIMPLE FACT TRANSLATES TO: GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

Good grief, what logic – and you are calling some one else a mumu? ? ?

Now pick you your pipe, take a long deep drag and fill your lungs with the aroma: yes, in that peaceful moment appreciate the intensity of just how much drivel your proposition is.

You are dangerously close to the point where I will begin to categorize you with Mr. Athest, the OP, and you know what my perception of his intellect is. Please leave off.

wirinet:
The human brain as i said is very complex and it capabilities are extraordinary, it is common knowledge that we use less than 10% of our brain capacity and the person that can use up to 10% would turn out a genius.

The human brain has been said to remember every experience it has since birth, but that capacity has to be suppressed to enable the person function normally. This remembering capacity can be let loose in a state of hypnosis.

here is an interesting story on the subject - http://www.newsweek.com/id/136334

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=357796.msg5001252#msg5001252 date=1259256235]@Deep sight.

The brain is a very complex organ and we're still unravelling the mysteries.
Whatever we feel or state of mind we find ourselves is usually as a result of happenings in our environment and the way we perceive it. Just like wirinet said, the possible states of mind are limitless and each situation is capable of throwing different people into different states.

More pointer to the fact everything emanates from the brain is the way certain drugs, poisons or toxins can totally change personalities and mindsets. A supposedly enlightened buddist monk with "inner peace" and "joy" would become disoriented when schizophrenic. Cocaine, marijuana and alcohol are known to put you in a state of serenity and joy where nothing else matters. The only difference here is KAG found that joy and inner happiness by discarding religion the same way you found yours by embracing the "oneness of infinity"

Its nothing spiritual. . . .two electrodes to your brain can change who you are.[/quote]Right. Might i ask you two to re-focus.

You are busy talking about the capacities of the brain. That is very well understood. But you need to respond one way or the other to my suggestion that it is a TOOL which man uses to APPREHEND the world. What say you to that?

In this do not be led astray by the fact that physical substances as you pointed out can affect the mood or state of mind. Given that the brain is a tool of the intangible mind, this is only to be expected, as it works in strict and direct association with the entire physiology of the man.

If the brain were really the man himself, then -

1. People who have near - death experiences in which the brain has already shut down (they are classified as brain-dead i.e: absolute zero neural activity and heart stopped for the period) would not be able to return to consciousness reporting visions they had in such a state. You may want to do some brief research on the well-documented cases of such near-death experiences.

2. It is also very well documented that some people have dreams about future events, which turn out to play out in startling detail. This has been my personal experience from a very young age right up till today. Might you want to suggest to me in what part of the brain such details of future events were stored?


3. How would you explain telepathy, psycho-kinesis, intuition and other human paranormal phenomena?

Nevertheless the foregoing is really all an aside. Because the core question remains the role of the brain: both of you are suggesting that the brain is the actual being – that the whole of mankind obey the dictates of neurons whose motivation must be presumed to be unknown and unknowable. Those neurons are working in concert towards the holistic perception of the man. Thus he hears, sees, feels, smells and taste, among many other functions.

Who is tasting that sweet? You make it appear as though the neurons for their own pleasure are tasting the sweet. The man is tasting the sweet through the faculty of the tongue and messages sent thereby to his brain and processed therein.

And who is hearing that music. Again you both make it appear as though the neurons arte having a party drinking wine and shagging babes inside the brain as they enjoy that music. That is absurd of course. Again, we see that the MAN is hearing and enjoying the music THROUGH the faculty of the ear and messages passed to the brain thereby and processed therein.

Who is appreciating that superb piece of art by Leonardo Da Vinci? I suppose the neurons are also art gurus, and are really enjoying the oil on canvass. Of course the man, through the faculty of the eyes, and messages sent back to the brain, - is appreciating that painting.

Now the fact that the brain works in concert with other body parts proves the point conclusively.

Why do you have a pair of eyes – so that the brain can see – or so that YOU can see?

Perhaps when you have sex, the neurons in your brain are gasping oooo and aaaah, because they just love it? No, the neurons help the man to experience the sensation.

So my trouble is that you guys make it appear as though the brain is a creature of its own, and all the parts of the body are its crutches.

All the senses and the parts of your body are evidence that a being needs to apprehend the world around it. And the brain is the faculty through which we do that.

As such, if you take substances that affect the brain, of course, your mind -state will be affected. Go pour acid into the brain-box of your car – of course the state of the car will be very badly affected. That does not make the brain-box the car, It is a tool vial which the whole vehicle functions.

Thus I make this rational contention to you: wherever a complex system exists and delivers a function or functions, that system is not the recipient in itself of the functions.

Digest this, and then disprove it if you can.

A crude example is this: car = complex system. Car does not exist to drive ITSELF around for ITS own purposes. It exists to ferry MAN around.

Again: A Computer. Complex System. Does it exist to please itself, or process information for MAN? ? ?

The brain is very much like a super computer – it is the ultimate information processor. For whom, or for what, does it process all that information? For itself?

I hope you are getting an idea of how possibly ludicrous the idea you are advancing is: That the brain does all these things to please itself!

IT IS GLARING that such systems work to support something else: namely the BEING.

mazaje:
Will you allow your god to come and speak to people himself? All these people that go around lying to themselves and others pretending to know what their variuous gods needs,wants and even thinks are PURELY DELUDED. . .Deeepsight I really agree with Davidylan when he says you are confused. . .you are the most confused person here on the NL religion section. . . When christianity fits your delusion you run to it accepting it and its dogma. . .when Buddaism rocks you boat you spew its dogman about karma and other things it talks about. . .your own delusion is to go around stealing people's ideas and placing it into your own non existent god. . .a god whom you have failed to define. . .keep on deluding yourself. . .

As i said within the post in question, i am not presenting an argument in this case. But might i suggest to you that you are not capable of comprehending the fact that any person may reject religion and yet accept spiritual realities. It is apparent that you can only understand people who are caged in specified lines of thinking - such as religions. When you see a liberated person who thinks freely and in all directions, without the baggage of religion - you will declare him confused. It is instructive that if i happened to agree with you on the statement that God does not exist, you would believe that i was no longer confused. So really its all about either agreeing with you, or agreeing with the religionists. If i agree with none, and think for myself - then in your view that amounts to being confused.

That shows a vast limitation, but like i said - that post is no argument, if it makes no sense to you, then so be it, let it rest.


[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg5000898#msg5000898 date=1259252446]@deep sight.

No offense what you've written is unmitigated rubbish. We are spirit gems that used to be little sparks emanating from the energy of god bla bla bla?

Let me guess, the oneness of infinity told you these things right? I laugh in japanese![/quote]As i said, that post is not an argument. If you glean nothing from it, that is fine, we may leave the matter at that.

Thanks.