(March 28, 2017 at 7:55 am)Little Rik Wrote: Lack of a belief in a creator (not deities) is a dogma for itself.

Atheism is a lack of a belief in any deity/god, creator? It is probably possible to hold to some non-deity creator and be atheist, as was demonstrated in one of my threads.

Quote:Reality and also the science that you believe so much tell us that there is no way that something pop up from nowhere so it obvious that the universe has been created by a creator.

What does something "popping" up from nowhere have to do with atheism?

Quote:I got bad news for you At.

Science so far hasn't discovered yet where the universe come from.

Yes, but it was previously believed in came from a deity, however, no deity fits the data, which is why you don't hear professional Cosmologists talking about any god in their conferences/meetings and studies.

Quote:You bring evidence that science know for sure where the universe come from and I will cover you in

solid gold.  

I am sure you wouldn't accept the universe being explained without a god

Quote:NDEs are not hallucination BECAUSE a dead brain doesn't produce hallucinations.   

But the brains that produce NDEs are not dead. You keep telling me they are, but that is incorrect.

Quote:You don't get At, do you?   

The consciousness that experienced the NDE so to speak left the body-brain to then come back in the body-brain once the experience end.
It is like if you stop your vehicle for sometime and then go back inside the vehicle and resume your journey.    

But you can't give me evidence for that, because its pseudo-science and religious dogma. All you can do is plug your ears and yell "GUESSES, GUESSES" and refuse to listen to evidence that NDEs occur from brain functions. 

Quote:Religions by the way don't even talk much if at all about the pineal gland and the consciousness.

The teachings about these things by spiritual minded beings are now totally forgotten so don't bother to talk about religions.

Today, religion is still at large.

Quote:Atheists are really stuck in the belief that when you die is the end for you.

Again, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god/deity. It doesn't tell you anything about the afterlife (if there is one) or whether they believe in an afterlife (some atheists do). I don't believe in a soul or the afterlife because I find no reason to, there is no evidence for consciousness being something that is separable from the body and the afterlife is the invention of religions. If I am wrong and some god/deity does exist and we have souls and are predetermined to go to an afterlife, then I guess I will find that out, but I am pretty sure that this was a religious invention, and have found no plausible reasons to accept the existence of any god.

Quote:This is a guess that goes against logic.

Your own personal faulty religious dogmatic logic.

Quote:That is where the consciousness lie and without consciousness you do not exist so by understanding about
this topic you understand the connection between limited and unlimited.  

This Descartes nonsense was mistaken, the Pineal Gland is one part of the brain that has a completely different function than previously thought, a gland that produces melatonin which influences patterns of sleep.

(March 18, 2017 at 10:12 am)Little Rik Wrote: Atheists keep on saying that they follow logic but in reality they go against logic.  
But let me put in simple terms what is and is not logic.  

Most people feel satisfied after eating or after having sex or after they got a new car.
Unfortunately this feeling of satisfaction doesn't last very long indeed.  
After a short time that feeling goes away and the action need to be done once again and again and again.  
In this way most people think that this repetition is the way to go and therefore it is logic and make sense.

This is not logic.  
Logic is when the feeling of satisfaction is permanent not temporary.
Smart people come to understand that physical-material things can not possibly bring a permanent
state of peace of mind and happiness that is why they work on actions that fulfill a state of permanent
feeling.

Peace of mind come from within so the work need to be done within.
Forget about an external God.  
The real God is you and is all within.
You only need to understand who you are, all the rest will follow.

Wow, what a giant wall of woo.

You contradict yourself by talking about "satisfaction" at first then your last sentence is "You only need to understand who you are, all the rest will follow"..... Um plenty of individuals are satisfied with whom they are and also dead wrong at the same time. Trump would be a prime example. This entire post is woo, not logic. You basically said "feeling good is temporary" then end it by saying "understand yourself". No this does not work because human  perceptions even of oneself can be and often are notoriously flawed.

Logic is a process, good logic follows a pragmatic process. None of this post expresses a process. How you think to insure quality of data is what matters. 

"Peace of mind", more woo. Again, lots of people are at peace with being greedy, others are at peace with being poor, others are at peace with being violent. 

If the word you are looking for is "introspective" that would be better, but even then, being introspective isn't enough. To know if you are right, you don't simply say "peace of mind", that is simply a woo way of convincing oneself they are right. 

Reality isn't about denying oneself no, but neither is convincing oneself and this post really sounds more like an emotional post and not logic. 

This post is totally ambiguous and could be used by anyone to justify anything to call it logic.

(March 28, 2017 at 3:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 18, 2017 at 10:12 am)Little Rik Wrote: Atheists keep on saying that they follow logic but in reality they go against logic.  
But let me put in simple terms what is and is not logic.  

Most people feel satisfied after eating or after having sex or after they got a new car.
Unfortunately this feeling of satisfaction doesn't last very long indeed.  
After a short time that feeling goes away and the action need to be done once again and again and again.  
In this way most people think that this repetition is the way to go and therefore it is logic and make sense.

This is not logic.  
Logic is when the feeling of satisfaction is permanent not temporary.
Smart people come to understand that physical-material things can not possibly bring a permanent
state of peace of mind and happiness that is why they work on actions that fulfill a state of permanent
feeling.

Peace of mind come from within so the work need to be done within.
Forget about an external God.  
The real God is you and is all within.
You only need to understand who you are, all the rest will follow.

Wow, what a giant wall of woo.

You contradict yourself by talking about "satisfaction" at first then your last sentence is "You only need to understand who you are, all the rest will follow"..... Um plenty of individuals are satisfied with whom they are and also dead wrong at the same time. Trump would be a prime example. This entire post is woo, not logic. You basically said "feeling good is temporary" then end it by saying "understand yourself". No this does not work because human  perceptions even of oneself can be and often are notoriously flawed.

Logic is a process, good logic follows a pragmatic process. None of this post expresses a process. How you think to insure quality of data is what matters. 

"Peace of mind", more woo. Again, lots of people are at peace with being greedy, others are at peace with being poor, others are at peace with being violent. 

If the word you are looking for is "introspective" that would be better, but even then, being introspective isn't enough. To know if you are right, you don't simply say "peace of mind", that is simply a woo way of convincing oneself they are right. 

Reality isn't about denying oneself no, but neither is convincing oneself and this post really sounds more like an emotional post and not logic. 

This post is totally ambiguous and could be used by anyone to justify anything to call it logic.

1) No wonder that my post become non logic.
You take a sentence from here one from there and another one from somewhere else and it all become
something out of context and non logic.

2) On top on taking my words out of context you also make a terrible confusion about peace of mind.
As far as people keep on searching for something there can not be any peace of mind.
Peace of mind only come when the search end and the microcosm become macrocosm but this point I guess is a bit too much for you to understand.

It is all so simple to understand this point but you make it so so complicated.
In this way the microcosm keep on staying microcosm for crores of years.  

(March 29, 2017 at 3:53 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 3:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Wow, what a giant wall of woo.

You contradict yourself by talking about "satisfaction" at first then your last sentence is "You only need to understand who you are, all the rest will follow"..... Um plenty of individuals are satisfied with whom they are and also dead wrong at the same time. Trump would be a prime example. This entire post is woo, not logic. You basically said "feeling good is temporary" then end it by saying "understand yourself". No this does not work because human  perceptions even of oneself can be and often are notoriously flawed.

Logic is a process, good logic follows a pragmatic process. None of this post expresses a process. How you think to insure quality of data is what matters. 

"Peace of mind", more woo. Again, lots of people are at peace with being greedy, others are at peace with being poor, others are at peace with being violent. 

If the word you are looking for is "introspective" that would be better, but even then, being introspective isn't enough. To know if you are right, you don't simply say "peace of mind", that is simply a woo way of convincing oneself they are right. 

Reality isn't about denying oneself no, but neither is convincing oneself and this post really sounds more like an emotional post and not logic. 

This post is totally ambiguous and could be used by anyone to justify anything to call it logic.

1) No wonder that my post become non logic.
You take a sentence from here one from there and another one from somewhere else and it all become
something out of context and non logic.

2) On top on taking my words out of context you also make a terrible confusion about peace of mind.
As far as people keep on searching for something there can not be any peace of mind.
Peace of mind only come when the search end and the microcosm become macrocosm but this point I guess is a bit too much for you to understand.

It is all so simple to understand this point but you make it so so complicated.
In this way the microcosm keep on staying microcosm for crores of years.  

But your posts aren't about logic. All it is is a collection of random superstitious nonsense decorated with incredibly vague wording. Such as this "microcosm become macrocosm" you speak of that, fancy as it sounds, is utterly meaningless.

If you really believe in all the things you have posted in this thread, that's your privilege, but you should take a moment or two to understand why others won't find you convincing at all.

(March 28, 2017 at 3:02 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 7:55 am)Little Rik Wrote: Lack of a belief in a creator (not deities) is a dogma for itself.

Atheism is a lack of a belief in any deity/god, creator? It is probably possible to hold to some non-deity creator and be atheist, as was demonstrated in one of my threads.

Gee Atheo I am very very puzzled.  
How can a creator that create such a huge and incredible universe not be some sort of God?
Please At help LR to understand.  

Quote:Reality and also the science that you believe so much tell us that there is no way that something pop up from nowhere so it obvious that the universe has been created by a creator.

Quote:What does something "popping" up from nowhere have to do with atheism?

Atheists do not believe in a God that create the universe so if nobody create the universe then come obvious to think that the universe pop up by magic.
But wait a minute At.
You were saying that some non deity creator may have created the universe.
Gee, the puzzle become more and more complicated by the minute.  

Quote:I got bad news for you At.

Science so far hasn't discovered yet where the universe come from.

Quote:Yes, but it was previously believed in came from a deity, however, no deity fits the data, which is why you don't hear professional Cosmologists talking about any god in their conferences/meetings and studies.

Most cosmologists study physical science and this science is bound by the physical aspect of the universe.
God goes well behind the physical aspect that is why for a cosmologist with a materialist attitude is next
to impossible to understand how the system works.
LR however give a big big tip to all these folks that think that thinking in physical-material term is possible to understand God.
Follow this system guys.
Take the fundamental factor that make up the universe.
Start from the bottom.
Start from the matter and then go up to the water the light-energy the air and the space and then go a bit further in the mind.
Follow your body-mind.
The matter is at the bottom (yes the waste material is matter).
The water little bit up (urine and sperm)
Then up again (yes the stomach create energy and energy can turn into light)
Up again where your lungs deal with air.
Up again At at the throat level where there is space.
And then what?

Easy At.
As the body is made of these aspect it also has a mind.

I guess you never thought about that At, did you?  
From here it is clear that as we are made from the same element that compose the universe
such universe must have a controlling mind and if there is a mind behind this universe these materialists
cosmologists need to get their shining backside up and realize how stupid they are.  

Quote:You bring evidence that science know for sure where the universe come from and I will cover you in
solid gold.  

Quote:I am sure you wouldn't accept the universe being explained without a god

I follow logic At not materialistic bullshit.  

Quote:NDEs are not hallucination BECAUSE a dead brain doesn't produce hallucinations.   

Quote:But the brains that produce NDEs are not dead. You keep telling me they are, but that is incorrect.

Wrong again At.
Doctors declared these people who experienced an NDE dead.
Do you believe in doctors or not?
Doctors practice the very science that you believe in.
You got to make up your mind At.
One moment you say that you believe in science.
The next moment you contradict yourself by deny that science is able to understand something.
Are you a cherry picker?  

Quote:You don't get At, do you?   

The consciousness that experienced the NDE so to speak left the body-brain to then come back in the body-brain once the experience end.
It is like if you stop your vehicle for sometime and then go back inside the vehicle and resume your journey.

Quote:But you can't give me evidence for that, because its pseudo-science and religious dogma. All you can do is plug your ears and yell "GUESSES, GUESSES" and refuse to listen to evidence that NDEs occur from brain functions.

The evidence is that the brain was dead as declared by doctors so NDEs can not come from a dead brain.

Quote:Religions by the way don't even talk much if at all about the pineal gland and the consciousness.

The teachings about these things by spiritual minded beings are now totally forgotten so don't bother to talk about religions.

Quote:Today, religion is still at large.

The original teaching from Jesus and others has been lost that is why religions do not talk about NDEs.
Are you obsessed with religions At?

Quote:Atheists are really stuck in the belief that when you die is the end for you.

Quote:Again, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god/deity. It doesn't tell you anything about the afterlife (if there is one) or whether they believe in an afterlife (some atheists do). I don't believe in a soul or the afterlife because I find no reason to, there is no evidence for consciousness being something that is separable from the body and the afterlife is the invention of religions. If I am wrong and some god/deity does exist and we have souls and are predetermined to go to an afterlife, then I guess I will find that out, but I am pretty sure that this was a religious invention, and have found no plausible reasons to accept the existence of any god.

Wrong again At.
Most people who experienced an NDE were people that didn't much care whether there was a God or not
and after their NDE they all believe in the existence of God so I wouldn't say that the believe in God only come from religious people.

Quote:That is where the consciousness lie and without consciousness you do not exist so by understanding about
this topic you understand the connection between limited and unlimited.

Quote:This Descartes nonsense was mistaken, the Pineal Gland is one part of the brain that has a completely different function than previously thought, a gland that produces melatonin which influences patterns of sleep.

That is what science has so far discovered.
Give time At and sooner or later even science will discover what the pineal gland is there for.

---

(March 29, 2017 at 4:18 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:

(March 29, 2017 at 3:53 am)Little Rik Wrote: 1) No wonder that my post become non logic.
You take a sentence from here one from there and another one from somewhere else and it all become
something out of context and non logic.

2) On top on taking my words out of context you also make a terrible confusion about peace of mind.
As far as people keep on searching for something there can not be any peace of mind.
Peace of mind only come when the search end and the microcosm become macrocosm but this point I guess is a bit too much for you to understand.

It is all so simple to understand this point but you make it so so complicated.
In this way the microcosm keep on staying microcosm for crores of years.  

But your posts aren't about logic. All it is is a collection of random superstitious nonsense decorated with incredibly vague wording. Such as this "microcosm become macrocosm" you speak of that, fancy as it sounds, is utterly meaningless.

If you really believe in all the things you have posted in this thread, that's your privilege, but you should take a moment or two to understand why others won't find you convincing at all.

I follow your suggestion Ma by taking a moment or two ........ to understand why others won't find me convincing at all.......and guess what?
I arrived at the same conclusion that I had before which is that most folks do not follow logic.
Not only that but they don't even follow the same science that they glorify all the time.
This science tell us that an effect must have a cause or an action must have a reaction that is why
by following science you should understand that the universe is an effect to a cause therefore there can not be any magic in it so if there is no magic a creator must be there.
This is science Ma but atheists contradict themselves by saying that they follow science.  

---

(March 28, 2017 at 9:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 7:55 am)Little Rik Wrote: But by activate the gland you not only keep it in top health but you go over.

This is pure garbage.  There is no way of knowing if your pineal gland is "activated" as it has no sensing nerves.  So this is pure baseless assertion.

I beg your pardon.
No nerves?


The third possibility was that information
about lighting was transmitted
to the pineal by nerves. Fortunately
Arisns Kappers had just identified the
nerve connections of the rat pineal as
coming from the sympathetic nervous
system. We found that if the sympathetic
pathway to the pineal was interrupted
by the removal of the superior
cervical ganglion, the ability of melatonin-forming
activity to be altered by
light was completely lost. Thus it appeared
that light was stimulating the
retina and then information about this
light was being transmitted to the pineal
via sympathetic nerves. Within the
pineal the sympathetic nerves probably
released neurohumors (noradrenaline or
serotonin), which acted on pineal cells
to induce (or block the induction of)
HIONIT; this enzyme in turn regulated
the synthesis of melatonin.


http://web.mit.edu/dick/www/pdf/40.pdf

(March 29, 2017 at 3:53 am)Little Rik Wrote: 1) No wonder that my post become non logic

Because they're composed that way?  When were they anything but?

Good morning Rik. Hope you are enjoying your life and your beliefs. Things are fine with my world and beliefs too, so no need for worry there, mate. Don't worry I won't be trying to sell you my beliefs. I like them but you go with what works for you chum.

---

(March 29, 2017 at 5:03 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 9:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is pure garbage.  There is no way of knowing if your pineal gland is "activated" as it has no sensing nerves.  So this is pure baseless assertion.

I beg your pardon.
No nerves?


The third possibility was that information
about lighting was transmitted
to the pineal by nerves. Fortunately
Arisns Kappers had just identified the
nerve connections of the rat pineal as
coming from the sympathetic nervous
system. We found that if the sympathetic
pathway to the pineal was interrupted
by the removal of the superior
cervical ganglion, the ability of melatonin-forming
activity to be altered by
light was completely lost. Thus it appeared
that light was stimulating the
retina and then information about this
light was being transmitted to the pineal
via sympathetic nerves. Within the
pineal the sympathetic nerves probably
released neurohumors (noradrenaline or
serotonin), which acted on pineal cells
to induce (or block the induction of)
HIONIT; this enzyme in turn regulated
the synthesis of melatonin.


http://web.mit.edu/dick/www/pdf/40.pdf

Wow, looky there. Someone, somewhere agrees with you Rik. They even wrote it down on the internet and everything. That's nice. Enjoy the moment.

(March 29, 2017 at 5:03 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 9:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is pure garbage.  There is no way of knowing if your pineal gland is "activated" as it has no sensing nerves.  So this is pure baseless assertion.

I beg your pardon.
No nerves?


The third possibility was that information
about lighting was transmitted
to the pineal by nerves. Fortunately
Arisns Kappers had just identified the
nerve connections of the rat pineal as
coming from the sympathetic nervous
system. We found that if the sympathetic
pathway to the pineal was interrupted
by the removal of the superior
cervical ganglion, the ability of melatonin-forming
activity to be altered by
light was completely lost. Thus it appeared
that light was stimulating the
retina and then information about this
light was being transmitted to the pineal
via sympathetic nerves. Within the
pineal the sympathetic nerves probably
released neurohumors (noradrenaline or
serotonin), which acted on pineal cells
to induce (or block the induction of)
HIONIT; this enzyme in turn regulated
the synthesis of melatonin.


http://web.mit.edu/dick/www/pdf/40.pdf

Quote:The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) is one of the two main divisions of the autonomic nervous system, the other being the parasympathetic nervous system.[1][2] The autonomic nervous system functions to regulate the body's unconscious actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatheti...ous_system

(bold mine)

The sympathetic nerves act without conscious awareness because they are not "sensing nerves".  So once again you're wrong.  It would help you if you actually understood what you read, but you didn't, so you post nonsense. The sympathetic nervous system is of no use to you in determining whether the pineal gland is "activated" or not, so it's of no use to you or other traditionalists with your claims about its function.

(March 26, 2017 at 9:29 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, you do me a favor and shut up with these stupid claims about the pineal gland which you can't even back up with other people's guesses.  When you have actual evidence that the pineal gland functions in the way you've claimed, then you can talk.  Until then, it's been established that you have no evidence showing that induced experiences are different from NDEs.  You've just got a failed attempt at providing support.  For all your evidence can say, NDEs are induced experiences.

(March 28, 2017 at 7:55 am)Little Rik Wrote: Lack of a belief in a creator (not deities) is a dogma for itself.

No it isn't.

Or y'know.. There's no free-will or logic, just the illusion of that.