Evolution

[Little Rik]

DOUBLE FOOL. 


The problem with your friend Whatever is that he himself is full of dogmas (which I have already indicated time and time again) so
wouldn't be better for him to get rid of his many dogmas before he worry about other people possible dogmas?  

Still cannot comprehend that atheism has no dogmas by definition, eh?

Wrong again brother Aba.  
Atheism is a dogma BECAUSE the concept of a NO God is build on a guess not on solid evidence so when you come to the conclusion on a guess you fall in the corral of dogma.
Atheists too are floating in a sea of dogmas.
From.......the consciousness is a product of the brain to.......when we die is all over to......the universe can do without God because entropy can do the job.
Just to mention few of them.

Total confusion VL.  
Consciousness and soul are the same thing whichever way you turn it.
But again NDEs already proved that as the body die the consciousness-soul get disconnected from the dead body.  

No they don't. By definition NDE's are "Near Death" not actually dead at all.

Wrong again Aba.  

The word of a doctor is a lot lot more important than the definition given.
As far as a doctor say that a person is dead then it means that such a person is really dead and when a doctor see the same person alive after sometime that means that he-she is really alive.

It is absurd that something material such as the brain can give birth to something abstract and so much great as the consciousness.
It would be like if the vehicle can give birth to the driver.
The materialistic idea is so absurd that is laughable so only an idiot would believe along those lines.  

Emergent behaviour. Learn what that is. To give you a simple example, explain why Langton's Ant always builds a highway regardless of the starting conditions.

Man.
Cut all this intellectual crap please.  
In nature the matter is totally unable to jump up all of a sudden in her progress and give birth to something endlessly more subtle such as a human consciousness that is why the brain that is made of matter and therefore of a very limited form of consciousness can not create the human consciousness.  

Considering is a question.
Believing in it is a different question which imply to give away a lifetime of dogmas.
Something to difficult to conceive for stubborn people.  

Why are your dogmas sacrosanct?

You show a dogma that I suppose to have and I will cover you in pure gold.  

There is nothing wrong in considering alternative points but when you see that the alternative is absurd then if you got a little bit of brain you know you should discard that alternative ASAP.  

Have a very lovely day anyway.  

But you think that you are right no matter what. That is a dogma that you hold.

That would be a dogma if I would think that also in the future I will always be right.
The future however is unknown to me that is why I only stick with what I know so far and so far in the field of God or not God I am right.  

Gee, you always give me bad news brother Khem.  
Hallucinations however are not real so your predictions will never come true.  

Reincarnation isn't true, so you are stuck.

Wrong once again.
Reincarnation is true because NDEs are true.

One question for you brother Khem.  
Suppose you are God and you have to sort out who goes up in the human evolution and who goes down.  
What would you do with those engaged in blasphemy?  

Don't know. What are you going to do about your blasphemy?

One accusation must be follow by solid evidence.
Considering that you lack in evidence you show how wrong you are.
Once again of course.  

[vulcanlogician]

Wrong again brother Aba.  
Atheism is a dogma BECAUSE the concept of a NO God is build on a guess not on solid evidence so when you come to the conclusion on a guess you fall in the corral of dogma.
Atheists too are floating in a sea of dogmas.
From.......the consciousness is a product of the brain to.......when we die is all over to......the universe can do without God because entropy can do the job.
Just to mention few of them.

How long have you been on the forums, Rik? The evidence for God is not built on solid evidence, so disbelief can hardly be considered dogma. Is it dogma to not believe in leprechauns? Unicorns?

No they don't. By definition NDE's are "Near Death" not actually dead at all.

Wrong again Aba.  

The word of a doctor is a lot lot more important than the definition given.
As far as a doctor say that a person is dead then it means that such a person is really dead and when a doctor see the same person alive after sometime that means that he-she is really alive.

Wake up, dude. A doctor is not an authority on what constitutes death. A doctor proclaims a patient dead when his/her condition falls within certain parameters that have more to do whether the patient's condition is reversible than the status of his immaterial soul.

It is absurd that something material such as the brain can give birth to something abstract and so much great as the consciousness.
It would be like if the vehicle can give birth to the driver.
The materialistic idea is so absurd that is laughable so only an idiot would believe along those lines.  

Nature also teaches me by these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst,
etc., that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that
I am very closely united to it, and so to speak so intermingled with it
that I seem to compose with it one whole. For if that were not the case,
when my body is hurt, I, who am merely a thinking thing, should not
feel pain, for I should perceive this wound by the understanding only,
just as the sailor perceives by sight when something is damaged in his
vessel; and when my body has need of drink or food, I should clearly
understand the fact without being warned of it by confused feelings of
hunger and thirst. For all these sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, etc.
are in truth none other than certain confused modes of thought which
are produced by the union and apparent intermingling of mind and
body.

Even Descartes (who was a dualist, and apparently your go-to source for metaphysics) realized that there must be a greater relation between the soul and body than that of a vehicle and it's driver. A lot of people have considered what Descartes had to say (me included) and do not find his case very convincing. That does not make us dogmatists. That makes us logical. We keep telling you that we have looked at your side and don't find it compelling, and the only response you can give is "FOOL. The only reason you disagree with me is that you haven't considered dualism due to atheist dogmas"

Bullshit, Rik. The only person in this thread who is unwilling to look at both sides of the issue is you.

---

---

[Amarok]

There is no conflict between dualism and atheism

---

Wrong again brother Aba.  
Atheism is a dogma BECAUSE the concept of a NO God is build on a guess not on solid evidence so when you come to the conclusion on a guess you fall in the corral of dogma.
Atheists too are floating in a sea of dogmas.
From.......the consciousness is a product of the brain to.......when we die is all over to......the universe can do without God because entropy can do the job.
Just to mention few of them.

How long have you been on the forums, Rik? The evidence for God is not built on solid evidence, so disbelief can hardly be considered dogma. Is it dogma to not believe in leprechauns? Unicorns?

Wrong again Aba.  

The word of a doctor is a lot lot more important than the definition given.
As far as a doctor say that a person is dead then it means that such a person is really dead and when a doctor see the same person alive after sometime that means that he-she is really alive.

Wake up, dude. A doctor is not an authority on what constitutes death. A doctor proclaims a patient dead when his/her condition falls within certain parameters that have more to do whether the patient's condition is reversible than the status of his immaterial soul.

It is absurd that something material such as the brain can give birth to something abstract and so much great as the consciousness.
It would be like if the vehicle can give birth to the driver.
The materialistic idea is so absurd that is laughable so only an idiot would believe along those lines.  

Nature also teaches me by these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst,
etc., that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that
I am very closely united to it, and so to speak so intermingled with it
that I seem to compose with it one whole. For if that were not the case,
when my body is hurt, I, who am merely a thinking thing, should not
feel pain, for I should perceive this wound by the understanding only,
just as the sailor perceives by sight when something is damaged in his
vessel; and when my body has need of drink or food, I should clearly
understand the fact without being warned of it by confused feelings of
hunger and thirst. For all these sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, etc.
are in truth none other than certain confused modes of thought which
are produced by the union and apparent intermingling of mind and
body.

Even Descartes (who was a dualist, and apparently your go-to source for metaphysics) realized that there must be a greater relation between the soul and body than that of a vehicle and it's driver. A lot of people have considered what Descartes had to say (me included) and do not find his case very convincing. That does not make us dogmatists. That makes us logical. We keep telling you that we have looked at your side and don't find it compelling, and the only response you can give is "FOOL. The only reason you disagree with me is that you haven't considered dualism due to atheist dogmas"

Bullshit, Rik. The only person in this thread who is unwilling to look at both sides of the issue is you.

---

---

So Rik keeps bringing the stupid of 

1.Calling atheists dogmatic when their anything but. Because he need them to be .

2. Pushing the all but dead ideology of substance dualism without merit . Proving it's him who never studied it .

3.And yup doctors are not the metric of death . That's why people have been buried alive .

[Little Rik]

Wrong again brother Aba.  
Atheism is a dogma BECAUSE the concept of a NO God is build on a guess not on solid evidence so when you come to the conclusion on a guess you fall in the corral of dogma.
Atheists too are floating in a sea of dogmas.
From.......the consciousness is a product of the brain to.......when we die is all over to......the universe can do without God because entropy can do the job.
Just to mention few of them.

How long have you been on the forums, Rik? The evidence for God is not built on solid evidence, so disbelief can hardly be considered dogma. Is it dogma to not believe in leprechauns? Unicorns?

Suppose that all thousand and thousand of NDEs of today and of the past are all BS.
Suppose also that high degree of spirituality have nothing to do with God.
Suppose also that Shiva, Krishna, Jesus and other guru never existed.
Suppose also that all those engaged in spiritual elevation have all got it wrong.
Suppose also that the universe pop up as per magic and nobody run it.
So considering that evidence for God is not there I should turn into an atheist that believe in magic?

Let me think VL.  

No VL.
Atheism is unscientific.
Science contradict atheism at every step.
There is no chaos in the universe and believe in a universe not created by God is like to believe that our phones and laptops just fell into place without anyone designing them or putting them together so this idea is obviously absurd so God must be there.

Wrong again Aba.  

The word of a doctor is a lot lot more important than the definition given.
As far as a doctor say that a person is dead then it means that such a person is really dead and when a doctor see the same person alive after sometime that means that he-she is really alive.

Wake up, dude. A doctor is not an authority on what constitutes death. A doctor proclaims a patient dead when his/her condition falls within certain parameters that have more to do whether the patient's condition is reversible than the status of his immaterial soul.

Doctors wouldn't know much about whether the consciousness die when the body die but they surely know when the body die after all they study for years and years on the subject.    

It is absurd that something material such as the brain can give birth to something abstract and so much great as the consciousness.
It would be like if the vehicle can give birth to the driver.
The materialistic idea is so absurd that is laughable so only an idiot would believe along those lines.  

Nature also teaches me by these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst,
etc., that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that
I am very closely united to it, and so to speak so intermingled with it
that I seem to compose with it one whole. For if that were not the case,
when my body is hurt, I, who am merely a thinking thing, should not
feel pain, for I should perceive this wound by the understanding only,
just as the sailor perceives by sight when something is damaged in his
vessel; and when my body has need of drink or food, I should clearly
understand the fact without being warned of it by confused feelings of
hunger and thirst. For all these sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, etc.
are in truth none other than certain confused modes of thought which
are produced by the union and apparent intermingling of mind and
body.

Even Descartes (who was a dualist, and apparently your go-to source for metaphysics) realized that there must be a greater relation between the soul and body than that of a vehicle and it's driver. A lot of people have considered what Descartes had to say (me included) and do not find his case very convincing. That does not make us dogmatists. That makes us logical. We keep telling you that we have looked at your side and don't find it compelling, and the only response you can give is "FOOL. The only reason you disagree with me is that you haven't considered dualism due to atheist dogmas"

Descartes is not my guru although he had a some good vision and understand of the inner self.
Being stuck inside a body involve that when the body suffer we also suffer.
The connection is unavoidable but this connection is not permanent.
The purpose of this connection is for giving us the chance to evolve in order to unify our consciousness with the supreme consciousness.
This unification put an end to dualism.
As a drop of water become the ocean once it merge into the ocean also our consciousness lose the duality once it merge with the cosmic consciousness.  

Bullshit, Rik. The only person in this thread who is unwilling to look at both sides of the issue is you.

What side VL?

You mean that I should look at an universe that pop up as per magic and nobody run it (the atheist side)?



Are you such a FOOL.  

---

There is no conflict between dualism and atheism

---

How long have you been on the forums, Rik? The evidence for God is not built on solid evidence, so disbelief can hardly be considered dogma. Is it dogma to not believe in leprechauns? Unicorns?



Wake up, dude. A doctor is not an authority on what constitutes death. A doctor proclaims a patient dead when his/her condition falls within certain parameters that have more to do whether the patient's condition is reversible than the status of his immaterial soul.




Even Descartes (who was a dualist, and apparently your go-to source for metaphysics) realized that there must be a greater relation between the soul and body than that of a vehicle and it's driver. A lot of people have considered what Descartes had to say (me included) and do not find his case very convincing. That does not make us dogmatists. That makes us logical. We keep telling you that we have looked at your side and don't find it compelling, and the only response you can give is "FOOL. The only reason you disagree with me is that you haven't considered dualism due to atheist dogmas"

Bullshit, Rik. The only person in this thread who is unwilling to look at both sides of the issue is you.

---

---

So Rik keeps bringing the stupid of 

1.Calling atheists dogmatic when their anything but. Because he need them to be .

2. Pushing the all but dead ideology of substance dualism without merit . Proving it's him who never studied it .

3.And yup doctors are not the metric of death . That's why people have been buried alive .

The only good thing in all your posts is your signature.
All the rest is trash.  

Learn from the Inuit dictum to strengthen your consciousness so you will leave the mental darkness once and for all.  

[Amarok]

1.Nope their are not atheist dogmas on rationally throughout possibilities or evidence based conclusions you simply projecting your mindset on to other.

2.



Your insane dualist nonsense in a nutshell . And no you never studied dualism   If you had you would know it's crap . 

3.   

4. You are the ultimate 

[Abaddon_ire]

Still cannot comprehend that atheism has no dogmas by definition, eh?

Wrong again brother Aba.  
Atheism is a dogma BECAUSE the concept of a NO God is build on a guess not on solid evidence so when you come to the conclusion on a guess you fall in the corral of dogma.

Wrong. Atheism is not built on a guess. It rests on the lack of any evidence for any of the countless thousands of claimed deities that never show up anywhere ever. Or do anything. Or even speak.

Atheists too are floating in a sea of dogmas.

Everyone is floating in a sea of dogmas. You even have a peculiar dogma of your own. Let's consider that one. Absent any jot or tittle of evidence, why should anyone accept your dogma?

From.......the consciousness is a product of the brain to.......when we die is all over to......the universe can do without God because entropy can do the job.
Just to mention few of them.

Provide an example of a consciousness that exists without a brain.
Provide an example of survival after death.
Provide an example which requires the intervention of any god.

You cannot.

Total confusion VL.  
Consciousness and soul are the same thing whichever way you turn it.
But again NDEs already proved that as the body die the consciousness-soul get disconnected from the dead body.  

No they don't. By definition NDE's are "Near Death" not actually dead at all.

Wrong again Aba.  

The word of a doctor is a lot lot more important than the definition given.
As far as a doctor say that a person is dead then it means that such a person is really dead and when a doctor see the same person alive after sometime that means that he-she is really alive.

NDE claimers haven't been declared dead for the most part, and I have my own experience on the operating table as reference. NDE claimers are spouting nonsense.

It is absurd that something material such as the brain can give birth to something abstract and so much great as the consciousness.
It would be like if the vehicle can give birth to the driver.
The materialistic idea is so absurd that is laughable so only an idiot would believe along those lines.  

Emergent behaviour. Learn what that is. To give you a simple example, explain why Langton's Ant always builds a highway regardless of the starting conditions.

Man.
Cut all this intellectual crap please.  

Heaven forfend that one might actually think, right?

In nature the matter is totally unable to jump up all of a sudden in her progress and give birth to something endlessly more subtle such as a human consciousness that is why the brain that is made of matter and therefore of a very limited form of consciousness can not create the human consciousness.  

Billions of years is hardly "all of a sudden", is it?

Considering is a question.
Believing in it is a different question which imply to give away a lifetime of dogmas.
Something to difficult to conceive for stubborn people.  

I was raised Catholic. I gave that dogma up around the same time as Santa. You, apparently, cling to the safety blanket of childhood. Why?

Why are your dogmas sacrosanct?

What dogma?

You show a dogma that I suppose to have and I will cover you in pure gold.  

Souls exist. Where's my gold?

There is nothing wrong in considering alternative points but when you see that the alternative is absurd then if you got a little bit of brain you know you should discard that alternative ASAP.  

That's how one becomes an atheist, discarding absurd beliefs.

But you think that you are right no matter what. That is a dogma that you hold.

Wrong. I will gladly change my mind on any matter when presented with evidence. Baseless assertions don't move me at all.

That would be a dogma if I would think that also in the future I will always be right.
The future however is unknown to me that is why I only stick with what I know so far and so far in the field of God or not God I am right.  

Wrong. You claim to know that you will be reincarnated.

Gee, you always give me bad news brother Khem.  
Hallucinations however are not real so your predictions will never come true.  

Reincarnation isn't true, so you are stuck.

Wrong once again.
Reincarnation is true because NDEs are true.

See above. It is all a load of bollocks.

One question for you brother Khem.  
Suppose you are God and you have to sort out who goes up in the human evolution and who goes down.  
What would you do with those engaged in blasphemy?  

That is not how evolution works in any way shape or form. Suppose you were a leprechaun. How do you decide who gets your crock of shit gold?

Don't know. What are you going to do about your blasphemy?

One accusation must be follow by solid evidence.
Considering that you lack in evidence you show how wrong you are.
Once again of course.  

Why do you never follow with solid evidence?

[Little Rik]

1.Nope their are not atheist dogmas on rationally throughout possibilities or evidence based conclusions you simply projecting your mindset on to other.

2.



Your insane dualist nonsense in a nutshell . And no you never studied dualism   If you had you would know it's crap . 

3.   

4. You are the ultimate 

Typical of someone who doesn't understand how the system works.  
So what we got is the usual trash.  

[vulcanlogician]

Suppose that all thousand and thousand of NDEs of today and of the past are all BS.

Done.

Suppose also that high degree of spirituality have nothing to do with God.

Done.

Suppose also that Shiva, Krishna, Jesus and other guru never existed.

Done

Suppose also that all those engaged in spiritual elevation have all got it wrong.

I don't agree with that. I'm sure people who are interested in spiritual elevation have gotten some things right.

Suppose also that the universe pop up as per magic and nobody run it.

Don't know how the universe "popped up" but magic isn't a very plausible assumption. It is also not APPARENT that anybody "runs it"... Where is the solid evidence? You can look into nature, like the Painted Desert in Arizona. Primitive people might think that some mythical being actually painted the rocks. But a geologist can explain how things happen naturally. Native Americans have myths about a spiritual creature making footprints on the moon... turns out to be craters. People assume God. Upon closer inspection... no God found. Not yet. Believe all you want. I don't believe because there is no proof. Show me the proof and I'll believe.

So considering that evidence for God is not there I should turn into an atheist that believe in magic?

You shouldn't believe in anything that hasn't been demonstrated, Rik.

Let me think VL.  

Let you? I'd give my left testicle to see you do it once!

No VL.
Atheism is unscientific.
Science contradict atheism at every step.
There is no chaos in the universe and believe in a universe not created by God is like to believe that our phones and laptops just fell into place without anyone designing them or putting them together so this idea is obviously absurd so God must be there.

The idea was absurd. Before Darwin. Now we can explain how life evolved.

Look at the whole universe. The VAST majority of it is inhospitable to life. "Destroy life" is the rule of the cosmos, and Earth is the only exception.

Look at the whole universe. Stars, black holes, collisions, pulsars. This shit is just happening. It is marvelous, I'll give you that. But no evidence for a creator is found anywhere.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can't prove that the stars a black hole consumes didn't kick dogs in a previous life vulcan.  

Didn't think of that, did you?

[Little Rik]

Wrong again brother Aba.  
Atheism is a dogma BECAUSE the concept of a NO God is build on a guess not on solid evidence so when you come to the conclusion on a guess you fall in the corral of dogma.

Wrong. Atheism is not built on a guess. It rests on the lack of any evidence for any of the countless thousands of claimed deities that never show up anywhere ever. Or do anything. Or even speak.

This is the answer that a fool gave when he was asked why he didn't find anything in the treasure hunt.  

Atheists too are floating in a sea of dogmas.

Everyone is floating in a sea of dogmas. You even have a peculiar dogma of your own. Let's consider that one. Absent any jot or tittle of evidence, why should anyone accept your dogma?

Evidence is everywhere but again the FOOL always look in the wrong place and obviously he never find it.  
The idiot look outside while the evidence is within.  

From.......the consciousness is a product of the brain to.......when we die is all over to......the universe can do without God because entropy can do the job.
Just to mention few of them.

Provide an example of a consciousness that exists without a brain.
Provide an example of survival after death.
Provide an example which requires the intervention of any god.
You cannot.

Yes I can.
NDEs, NDEs and looking deep within in the subconscious mind.    

Wrong again Aba.  

The word of a doctor is a lot lot more important than the definition given.
As far as a doctor say that a person is dead then it means that such a person is really dead and when a doctor see the same person alive after sometime that means that he-she is really alive.

NDE claimers haven't been declared dead for the most part, and I have my own experience on the operating table as reference. NDE claimers are spouting nonsense.

I got bad news for you son.  
Even strong and staunch atheists change their mind after their NDE.
And what about Eben Alexander an expert in brain?
Who are you Aba?
Are you such a FOOL that pretend to know more than the experts and think that ex atheists (now strong theists) are lying?  

Man.
Cut all this intellectual crap please.  

Heaven forfend that one might actually think, right?

I really wish you would think right but unfortunately you do not.

In nature the matter is totally unable to jump up all of a sudden in her progress and give birth to something endlessly more subtle such as a human consciousness that is why the brain that is made of matter and therefore of a very limited form of consciousness can not create the human consciousness.  

Billions of years is hardly "all of a sudden", is it?

True.
It takes billions of years for the matter to turn into human consciousness that is why the brain that is made of matter can not possibly turn into human consciousness.

Considering is a question.
Believing in it is a different question which imply to give away a lifetime of dogmas.
Something to difficult to conceive for stubborn people.  

I was raised Catholic. I gave that dogma up around the same time as Santa. You, apparently, cling to the safety blanket of childhood. Why?

Actually I also was raised Catholic and I also gave up that dogma.
Luckily I found Mr. anti dogma in person who show me how to keep away from dogmas.

Why are your dogmas sacrosanct?

What dogma?

You got the wrong quotation son.

Go back and see who wrote that.  

You show a dogma that I suppose to have and I will cover you in pure gold.

Souls exist. Where's my gold?

You are running too much with your fantasy Mr.
Explain first in what context you say that.

There is nothing wrong in considering alternative points but when you see that the alternative is absurd then if you got a little bit of brain you know you should discard that alternative ASAP.  

That's how one becomes an atheist, discarding absurd beliefs.

Of course absurd beliefs must be discarded provided that they are void of any evidence.
However to jump on the wagon of atheism which is also build on a guess is equal foolish.

But you think that you are right no matter what. That is a dogma that you hold.

Wrong. I will gladly change my mind on any matter when presented with evidence. Baseless assertions don't move me at all.

Once again you got the wrong quotation.
Somebody else said that.

That would be a dogma if I would think that also in the future I will always be right.
The future however is unknown to me that is why I only stick with what I know so far and so far in the field of God or not God I am right.  

Wrong. You claim to know that you will be reincarnated.

You are out of context.
My previous answer is related to whether I will or will not be correct in my judgements in the next life if of course I will be reincarnated again.
Reincarnation so far has been proved in thousand of NDEs so is not a dogma beside if my karma is wiped out I don't have to be reincarnated again.

Wrong once again.
Reincarnation is true because NDEs are true.

See above. It is all a load of bollocks.

See above.
The evidence is overwhelming.

One question for you brother Khem.  
Suppose you are God and you have to sort out who goes up in the human evolution and who goes down.  
What would you do with those engaged in blasphemy?

That is not how evolution works in any way shape or form. Suppose you were a leprechaun. How do you decide who gets your crock of shit gold?

That is how evolution works Aba.
Your free will will get you up or down in the evolution process.

One accusation must be follow by solid evidence.
Considering that you lack in evidence you show how wrong you are.
Once again of course.  

Why do you never follow with solid evidence?

Don't panic mate.
You too will find solid evidence the day you will stop looking outside and star looking within.  





(Color mine)