All in the Mind!

Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
All in the Mind!

Been a while since I visited here. Took stock of my life and views after having second thoughts regarding being atheist. Yes, I had a "relapse"...I mean, come on, who of us wouldn't like to

know for certain where everything began and what happens after death, as claimed by religion?

However, at the end of all the meandering, I came to a conclusion.

Funnily enough, the answer came to me after reading the books of Douglas Adams! Reading those funny, weird stories, I realized that the answer is all in my head.

We can believe anything we want, as long as we convince ourselves.

But, in my opinion, being an atheist means subscribing to the age old saying: " Seeing is believing"...it's as simple as that!

If you believe in god, fine...now show him/her to me!

Science is the only way with which we can explain the universe. Any thing else is just in the mind!

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No it isn't being debated,

No it isn't being debated, it is s fact.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Whats being debated is-

Vastet wrote:
No it isn't being debated, it is s fact. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

not whether the brain is physical--that is known. What's being debated is whether thought is material or non-material, and, what a thought really is. One has to go to more then one site and get the input of others. So far there's no consensus on what thought is or isn't. Thought  may be a dirivative of the brain but not the brain itself. In a past post I pointed out that it may be a pattern of electrons that produces images and mental forms. In the biblical sense the writers hold that a person is the mental not the physical. But, they may be wrong,and there iwas no way for them to know that to be true. On their part it may be an assumption. Today it is still being hashed over as to what the mental is. Some theorize this and some that. At this point in time it seems to be what one preferes or believes. In essencethe writers would mean the there are only 2 things the universe contains, the spiritual (person) and the material. If thought is a matter of electron positioning or makeup, then the universe contains only material.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I believe that the body

 I believe that the body and the mind are different. When your body ceases to exist your mind is freed and then goes off to a spirit world where you get free sex and beer. When you get bored with sex and beer you vomit and end up being reincarnated.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Looks like

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 I believe that the body and the mind are different. When your body ceases to exist your mind is freed and then goes off to a spirit world where you get free sex and beer. When you get bored with sex and beer you vomit and end up being reincarnated.

 

mad dog darkage superstition to me. I wonder at times why they believe that when re-constituted they come back as a fish or earth worm etc. Why not come back as one's self.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Spock, are our ceremonies for outworlders?

 The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me: For me the angels sing-a-ling-a-ling,: They've got the goods for me.

 The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me! The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for

 me: For me the angels sing-a-ling-a-ling,: They've got the goods for me. The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me!
 

> Spock, are our ceremonies for outworlders?

 

   

 

   Hey Pal

 

     I'd almost be willing to bet you didn't know, the site is starting its' own official cult (and yes, sarcasm is lost on so many!!)!!



 

 

  To Whom It May Concern (Triple Lol!)! View Uploaded Images . . .

 

  

      

 

 



 

    Now about that action step or putting it into production; that is actually up in the air (a little bird told me) . . .

 

   Sorry for the Edit ..  Must Edit  serious formatting issues, so Edited the text, K ?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Vastet

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No it isn't being debated, it is s fact. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

not whether the brain is physical--that is known. What's being debated is whether thought is material or non-material, and, what a thought really is. One has to go to more then one site and get the input of others. So far there's no consensus on what thought is or isn't. Thought  may be a dirivative of the brain but not the brain itself. In a past post I pointed out that it may be a pattern of electrons that produces images and mental forms. In the biblical sense the writers hold that a person is the mental not the physical. But, they may be wrong,and there iwas no way for them to know that to be true. On their part it may be an assumption. Today it is still being hashed over as to what the mental is. Some theorize this and some that. At this point in time it seems to be what one preferes or believes. In essencethe writers would mean the there are only 2 things the universe contains, the spiritual (person) and the material. If thought is a matter of electron positioning or makeup, then the universe contains only material.

That is not a debate. Thought is material, period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seers don't

hold to one or the other, we're neutral on this one. Smiling


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And as a result you are

And as a result you are wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't mind being wrong

but where am I wrong on this. I'm not claiming anything other then psycology types are debating. I'm not thinking they are right or wrong --they're doing research to find out if "they" are right or wrong. One can't be wrong if one is neutral. You'll find all their differences of opinon or knowledge are all over the www. If they're not debating then why is the website I posted as an example saying they are debating. I'm not debating--they are. I merely pointed out that we as a group interpret the book as --it says that the writers take on this is that the body and person/mind are separate. We're not holding to that idea because we don't know, and we don't know how they could know. OK, are the pscycology types debating or not, Y/N ?  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Psychology types and

Psychology types and scientists are NOT debating this ANYWHERE. Only crackpot theists and philosophers debate things that have been discarded as ridiculous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The entirety of the fields

The entirety of the fields of psychology and psychiatry DEPEND on the fact that the mind is material. If it was not, there would be no such thing as a psychiatrist or psychologist. All we would have would be councillors and philosophers. The idea that the mind is somehow separate from matter has been ridiculous for more than a hundred years.

It's literally the same as saying gravity is separate from mass, or that evolution is separate from matter, or that light is separate from photons, or sound is separate from phonons. It is absolutely ridiculous and no scientist in the field would ever support such nonsense.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I won't argue that

As we don't argue or debate. But what you say hasn't been proven.That's why we are neutral on this subject. IE- energy is not material. The brain "may" have a way of using energy to form the person. How can anyone know. All matter is (as I understand it) formed from energy. The brain may have the ability to use energy in a manner we don't understand as yet. There are psycho types that would agree with you and others wouldn't.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes it HAS been proven. END

Yes it HAS been proven. END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION.

FYI energy is material

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:As we don't

Old Seer wrote:

As we don't argue or debate. But what you say hasn't been proven.That's why we are neutral on this subject. IE- energy is not material.  

 

Einstein disagrees. Or haven't you heard? E=MC2

 

It's an old theist tactic to try and equate immateriality with energy....  come up with your own dodge, my friend. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: No Oh oh no, no !!

>No Oh oh no, no !!

[ Quote=danatemporary ]

 The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me: For me the angels sing-a-ling-a-ling,: They've got the goods for me.

 The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me! [Color=grey]The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for

 me: For me the angels sing-a-ling-a-ling,: They've got the goods for me. The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me!
 

> Spock, are our ceremonies for outworlders?

 

   

 

   Hey Pal

 

     I'd almost be willing to bet you didn't know, the site is starting its' own official cult (and yes, sarcasm is lost on so many!!)!!



 

 

  To Whom It May Concern (Triple Lol!)! View Uploaded Images . . .

 

  

      

 

 



 

    Now about that action step or putting it into production; that is actually up in the air (a little bird told me) . . .

 

 [ /Quote ]

    

 

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_XAco7e5o {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_XAco7e5o}

 

    You know, I mean,  you  do  know, ha pregnancy, nursing, and menstration does affect your mood, for most.  > (Hehe) Then there are Books, and  Maps, and  Kisses and Meatball subs ( dare I say it, our time in "Hel", a "H-e-l-l" of our own choosing, for some! )!

 

 

    p.p.s.  --  I got a bad feeling about Suicidy.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*time saving post*

*time saving post*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
At the end of

danatemporary wrote:

>No Oh oh no, no !!

[ Quote=danatemporary ]

 The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me: For me the angels sing-a-ling-a-ling,: They've got the goods for me.

 The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me! [Color=grey]The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for

 me: For me the angels sing-a-ling-a-ling,: They've got the goods for me. The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling: For you but not for me!
 

> Spock, are our ceremonies for outworlders?

 

   

 

   Hey Pal

 

     I'd almost be willing to bet you didn't know, the site is starting its' own official cult (and yes, sarcasm is lost on so many!!)!!



 

 

  To Whom It May Concern (Triple Lol!)! View Uploaded Images . . .

 

  

      

 

 



 

    Now about that action step or putting it into production; that is actually up in the air (a little bird told me) . . .

 

 [ /Quote ]

    

 

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_XAco7e5o {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_XAco7e5o}

 

    You know, I mean,  you  do  know, ha pregnancy, nursing, and menstration does affect your mood, for most.  > (Hehe) Then there are Books, and  Maps, and  Kisses and Meatball subs ( dare I say it, our time in "Hel", a "H-e-l-l" of our own choosing, for some! )!

 

 

    p.p.s.  --  I got a bad feeling about Suicidy.

 

 

the 9 months all that pain and worry and suffering ends in a great thing, a baby one. A great good has come about. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
E=Mc2

todangst wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

As we don't argue or debate. But what you say hasn't been proven.That's why we are neutral on this subject. IE- energy is not material.  

 

Einstein disagrees. Or haven't you heard? E=MC2

 

It's an old theist tactic to try and equate immateriality with energy....  come up with your own dodge, my friend. 

Does not mean that matter and energy are the same thing. Energy is what matter has but it is not matter itself.

I am a physicist, and according to my high school physics  teacher (and principal) who pasted away resently--I was the "only" physics student he ever had. You 2 have to start over I think. Everything you need to know is on the web.

I am not a theist, but the floks here insist that I am so I let them have it their way. They are the one's that are "god" (in charge) here and they rule the roost, as it is refere3d to. The Old Seers do not believe there is such a thing as a deity or super human entity running the universe. God is nothing more then a term meaning force. if you study (as we did) the common usage of the term 'God" you'll find that it equals "force"and, also E=Mc2. Universal construction rules in the universe and nothing else. We are only a part of and one of the forces that rule. In the worlds case- people are the problem---and if people insist on ruleing (applying force playing God) over each other then as you can see the world suffers the problems it has, and has had from the time some one started this charade. There are times you must recognize "God" (who in this case, the forces that rule)(the ones running the site here) and surcumb to the powers that be. Old Seers find it is better to be at peace with others then argue trivials to no end or result.

If Vastet wishes to have his own world and disregard the input of others when the evidence is all over the web---then so be it. I'm entitled to my world so why can't he have his.  So be it. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Does not mean

Old Seer wrote:
Does not mean that matter and energy are the same thing. Energy is what matter has but it is not matter itself.

You must have skipped high school. ALL matter is energy. ALL energy is material, measurable, and quantifiable.

Old Seer wrote:
I am a physicist,

Bullshit. If you were a physicist you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.

Old Seer wrote:
If Vastet wishes to have his own world and disregard the input of others when the evidence is all over the web---then so be it. I'm entitled to my world so why can't he have his.  So be it.

You're the only one living in his own world here. There is no evidence anywhere to refute what I've stated here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What about this guy:

umming Up

This article is long, but I hope it is illuminating and informative for those of you who want details.  Let me give you a summary of the lessons it contains:

  • Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
  • Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse.  Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons.  Consumer beware!  Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
  • Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.  
  • The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all.  It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
  • Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar.  All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
  • The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles.  At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

You're wrong Vastet. This stuff is alloverthe web. There are floks out there that deal with these subjects on a far greater scale then we. I have to go with them. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:umming UpThis

Old Seer wrote:

umming Up

This article is long, but I hope it is illuminating and informative for those of you who want details.  Let me give you a summary of the lessons it contains:

  • Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
  • Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse.  Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons.  Consumer beware!  Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
  • Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.  
  • The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all.  It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
  • Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar.  All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
  • The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles.  At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

You're wrong Vastet. This stuff is alloverthe web. There are floks out there that deal with these subjects on a far greater scale then we. I have to go with them. Smiling

 

No, YOU are wrong. I can find all kinds of bullshit spread across the internet. Just because some idiot wrote something doesn't make it true.

Until you can quote a peer reviewed scientific article that hasn't been ripped to shreds, all you are doing is demonstrating your absolute ignorance of all science.

I don't generally like using wikipedia as a source, but in this particular case you are so completely ignorant on the subject that referring to wikipedia cannot possibly make you any less acquainted with the subject.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
So, you

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:

umming Up

This article is long, but I hope it is illuminating and informative for those of you who want details.  Let me give you a summary of the lessons it contains:

  • Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
  • Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse.  Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons.  Consumer beware!  Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
  • Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.  
  • The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all.  It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
  • Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar.  All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
  • The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles.  At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

You're wrong Vastet. This stuff is alloverthe web. There are floks out there that deal with these subjects on a far greater scale then we. I have to go with them. Smiling

 

No, YOU are wrong. I can find all kinds of bullshit spread across the internet. Just because some idiot wrote something doesn't make it true. Until you can quote a peer reviewed scientific article that hasn't been ripped to shreds, all you are doing is demonstrating your absolute ignorance of all science. I don't generally like using wikipedia as a source, but in this particular case you are so completely ignorant on the subject that referring to wikipedia cannot possibly make you any less acquainted with the subject. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
You go to the web, pick a page,but don't say whether the info on the page is bullshit (as you call it), but like the Jehovahs Witnesses science is only worth while if it fits thier ideas , and every thing that doesn't fit their mind or beliefs is bullshit. Everyone you disagree with is an idiot. Amazing. As I said--you have your own world. One needs to look and study many things of a subject to be understanding. So you just go with what you prefere. That seems quite idiotic to me. There are people with great know how on the web and there are those that aren't. It's obvious that you pick what fits what you claim. You need to look more me thinks. Study study study. Look at all of them and the proper understanding will become apparent over time. OR, everyone is wrong.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You go to the

Old Seer wrote:
You go to the web, pick a page,

Thanks for continuing to demonstrate your complete ignorance on the subject as well as your complete lack of critical thinking skills. It makes it ridiculously easy to keep telling you that you are absolutely wrong.

Next!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.