Fed up of non believers

[salsafan]

That could be the case but are you advocating something you equally don't understand or are you deeply knowledgeable on the subject?

 

Humans produce electricity, humans produce machines that produce electricity. Both are used in medicine. Why is it that when a human produces what is known as fact it's somehow seen as "spiritual" and "miracle like"?

 

The religious world tends to clutch at the "you can't see it therefore it's unexplainable". It's almost as if their running out of ideas in the face of science.

I do know some of the subjects that I talk of, and I also know when something is more BS. I do try and put forward some of the comments to the different individuals who see it from a different angle. I know what they are on about. (So far, we have touched upon, ethics, religion, science, sociology, and also psychology too.) It really does roll up into one. But the point is, all these kind of things happened and occurred at different time in this world. So it may seem like it is chicken and egg debate, but it does make sense, honest!

 

What I am trying to say is that, the world is actually fairly simple. There had been different words to describe the same thing. But one thing is for sure is that "what you see is what you get". This has not changed over the number of years when Man has got a brain. Science always explain what one cannot see, and use a theory to support what is the metaphysical. I use the term "metaphysical" because that is probably what Man used to think it is. It is only later on that science gained its own terminologies on different things that they see. At the same time, it does not mean that one should indeed reject all the other notions and theories that were created before by the various civilisations that existed in this world.

 

The modern day science in the West can be said to be a branch off from Christianity itself over a long period of time. Whereas in China, you can see the idea of "chi" and the medicine that they are using are also as credible but it is branched off from Buddhism. It has a "what I treat you with is what I see as healing you". This knowledge has been added bit by bit over the course of 2000 years. So why is this "not credible" ? It is more passed on from generation to generation.

 

Maybe it is the desire of modern day atheist to detach itself from Christianity and its past and merely place it as "the religion", but in reality if you look at the historical past, it was part of the same knowledge and understanding. The seed came from that point.

 

 

To me, I guess I have not seen many "real life" examples of religion demonstrating energy, and this to me is absolutely fascinating, and it was definitely not an association that I looked deeply into before. Although I know that body energy work existed, but I had no idea how it was applied.

Edited March 5, 2014 by salsafan

[flamingjimmy]

The modern day science in the West can be said to be a branch off from Christianity itself over a long period of time.

Nope, that's ridiculous.

 

Whereas in China, you can see the idea of "chi" and the medicine that they are using are also as credible but it is branched off from Buddhism.

Once again, nope.

 

Firstly, there are no credible chi practitioners.

 

Secondly, it did not come from Buddhism, the concept of chi existed in china for several hundred years before Buddhism made its way from India.

[Cyclone]

And modern science owes more to Islam than Christianity.

[salsafan]

Nope, that's ridiculous.

Why is this ridiculous ? Christianity later had the Renaissance period. Which we do know has attributed to modern day science, and the basis to build on. I suppose one can cross reference other civilisations like the Mayans and compare to see what they did and how the original science concepts came about. But I also know that those who are more pedantic will want the exact point in time as science "was" defined with evidences, than when it was applied but without the actual quantification and definition of science itself.

 

Once again, nope.

Firstly, there are no credible chi practitioners.

 

Secondly, it did not come from Buddhism, the concept of chi existed in china for several hundred years before Buddhism made its way from India.

There are credible chi practitioners, and they exist in China.

http://youtu.be/7ql42nqoomE

 

It cannot make it across the waters cos the British medical board closed the door on them as they do not understand how to go about quantifying this concept. Please do see the bbc documentary.

 

http://youtu.be/41vm87qq1KU

 

That is why only the "applied" of chi work exists in the West. Like Tai Chi, or like Acupuncture, but not the concept itself. Well, there may be masseurs but not in definitively based on Chi work. (The other similar area is that, some "spiritualist" in the UK are actually Chi masters who could channel their own energy. Their language and the way they define it is just different, but what they are trying to do is the same.)

 

All I know is that Chi is just a word in Chinese as "air". People knew that there is something to air. It was thought that if you absorb "chi", then you can channel this. Like when someone eat something, then they gain energy. This is how it started. when you stick a needle in a certain point, it is supposed to in description "rechannel" that energy. (Which is different to what is portrayed in the BBC documentary, as they think that the person who did this is literally deactivating and reactivating something. They seem to want precision, and an applied understanding of Western words and terminologies on an Eastern concept. But they struck gold in finding some possible answers.)

 

Meditation is always about calming the mind, and reducing pain, and memories. This has and is a part of Buddhism, regardless of when this occurred. It is to control one's mind, one's breathing, one's pulse, and therefore energy too. From this basic principle, the movement and redirection of energy into different parts of the body comes later, yes, I will agree on this.

 

The various "healing system" is based on practises, and tested through time.

Edited March 5, 2014 by salsafan

[mjw47]

It has been explained to you many many times. You don't get it.

 

The fact that you don't get it has made people attempt further explanation.

 

You still don't get it.

 

You hurl insults such as pedantic, nit-picking, posse, etc.

 

Some insults come back at you.

 

Repeat ad infinatum.

 

You've become boring now, which is why I stopped engaging with you on the agnosticism point, though I am still mildly interested to see how your opinion regarding the whole chance-of-life-evolving thing develops.

 

I am, however, still following the thread with interest and, when I read your tirade at Redwhine, an image appeared in my head which I chose to share.

 

And by choosing to do so you revealed a little of your character. That action was that of a childish keyboard warrior with not enough knowledge of how to behave.

 

If you look at the insults which I have posted you will find that they are retorts to ones which have been directed at me.

 

And just because you keep saying something is so, it doesn't necessarily make it so. Although that appears beyond your ability to understand.

 

The premise upon which you and your PM ing mates are basing your viewpoints on is flawed at the start.

 

You keep insisting that you can tell someone what it is that they believe by introducing nonsense such as 'agnostic atheist.'

 

The very idea that it is possible to deduce that someone is mistaken as to their beliefs without a qualification in psychology, and several hours of face to face conversation is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

Yet that is precisely what some of you are attempting to do by 'defining words'.

 

The hubris and lack of self awareness of some of you is actually priceless.

 

I introduced the word agnostic into this thread quite deliberately as I had so much fun the last time.

 

And you have not let me down, it's like Pavlov's dog.

 

You really are a bunch of self supporting delusional saddos, and whilst it is possibly a little cruel of me to take advantage for my own amusement, it really is difficult to resist.

 

Now, as I asked previously how about a comment on post 751.

[flamingjimmy]

Why is this ridiculous ? Christianity later had the Renaissance period.

Just because some Christians did something (the early renaissance proto-scientists were not all christian) does not mean that that thing is a branch of Christianity. By that reasoning Nazism is also a branch of Christianity, so are you comfortable with that reasoning still?

 

There are credible chi practitioners, and they exist in China.

http://youtu.be/7ql42nqoomE

Lol, seriously, I actually laughed out loud twice while watching that video. Do you really believe the claims made in it?

[SnailyBoy]

You really are obtuse, you accuse me of being ignorant and yet you fail to understand simple logic.

 

Agnosticism and atheism are differing beliefs. You cannot be both at the same time, no more than you can be a atheist theist.

 

What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

Atheism is a belief ,and only a particularly uninformed person would state anything different.

 

Any opinion which cannot be proven is a belief.

 

Oxford English Dictionary definition of Belief : A feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof : A firmly held opinion .: ( belief in ) trust or confidence in. : Religious faith.

 

Atheists believe without actual proof that there is no God(s) They therefore hold a belief, and are believers.

 

A statement which could only be challenged by someone who lacks comprehension.

 

Yes a theist does believe in the existence of God ,and that belief prevents them from believing the opposite (anyone holding two conflicting beliefs simultaneously needs to seek help ) that isn't an inference, it's a fact. Were it otherwise they would not be true believers would they?

 

Agnosticism is also a belief, in that we believe that as there is no way of knowing either way, we do not believe or disbelieve in the existence, or none existence, of God(s)

 

That puts agnosticism in opposition to both of the other beliefs, and makes it impossible for anyone to be an 'agnostic atheist' ( I don't necessarily accept the belief that no God(s) exist.)

 

Neither can anyone be an 'agnostic theist' ( I don't necessarily accept the belief that God(S)do exist. )

 

Where 'belief' comes in to agnosticism is that we believe that humans will never actually get to know the truth. That view cannot be proven, and so therefore it is only a belief.

 

As we are picking each other up on meaningless incorrect terminology what you meant to say there was ' It would' rather than 'it does'.

 

And no, I don't believe a word does exist anywhere in the English language with the sole purpose of proving me wrong.

 

There do however, appear to be a few which exist to prove that you're not the sharpest tool in the box.

 

Though I say it myself I am pretty funny aren't I?

 

 

Saves typing

[Lockjaw]

And by choosing to do so you revealed a little of your character. That action was that of a childish keyboard warrior with not enough knowledge of how to behave.

 

If you look at the insults which I have posted you will find that they are retorts to ones which have been directed at me.

 

And just because you keep saying something is so, it doesn't necessarily make it so. Although that appears beyond your ability to understand.

 

The premise upon which you and your PM ing mates are basing your viewpoints on is flawed at the start.

 

You keep insisting that you can tell someone what it is that they believe by introducing nonsense such as 'agnostic atheist.'

 

The very idea that it is possible to deduce that someone is mistaken as to their beliefs without a qualification in psychology, and several hours of face to face conversation is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

Yet that is precisely what some of you are attempting to do by 'defining words'.

 

The hubris and lack of self awareness of some of you is actually priceless.

 

I introduced the word agnostic into this thread quite deliberately as I had so much fun the last time.

 

And you have not let me down, it's like Pavlov's dog.

 

You really are a bunch of self supporting delusional saddos, and whilst it is possibly a little cruel of me to take advantage for my own amusement, it really is difficult to resist.

 

See post 754.

 

 

 

 

Now, as I asked previously how about a comment on post 751.

 

See post 760

[salsafan]

Just because some Christians did something (the early renaissance proto-scientists were not all christian) does not mean that that thing is a branch of Christianity. By that reasoning Nazism is also a branch of Christianity, so are you comfortable with that reasoning still?

But they were Christians then, right? We like to differentiate things now, but do you see how silly this whole "non-believer" really is ?

 

What do you call this person when it is at home ?

A person who is a Christian and goes to church but then he is also a science lecturer and studies science ? In historical times, there are an awful lot of these kind of people around. Just that not everybody had their work written down, and made known to man. The same can be said about spirituality and practising meditation as a form of healing.

 

Nazism is a concept isn't it ? It is a label that we put towards what happened. It is of a bunch of people in a set time period, who were angry, and then made use of the opportunity and harmed others socially. That is all that it is about. They were so curious about genes and differences and that they had the ego to think that they are the best, and they tried to find more and more ways to differentiate themselves and eliminate others from the process. It really is a form of psychology suppression to be honest.

 

Lol, seriously, I actually laughed out loud twice while watching that video. Do you really believe the claims made in it?

Yes. Cos I am a Taoist, that is why. I have not tried acupuncture yet myself, but I do believe in Confucianism, and the philosophy of the middle-way. I try to apply the yin-yang to food, which is what I was also taught as well from a young age, and this is a known theory already all over SE Asia. I believe the West now is scrambling to make sense and understanding of why certain food combination is both good for the body and also good as a taste too. But there is also a common method of "eating seasonally", which is already something which everyone used to do around the globe regardless of their background.

 

The difference between the West and the East is that, in the East, they are also aware of the neurological effect too. The psychological angle to when they do something or when they eat something. If you eat something, and it is holistic, your brain feels good. There seems to be little or no evidences done so far (as far as I can see), to tie in the brain effect to the body's effect at the same time. I suppose for others, it is kind of similar. e.g. I am eating this organic item, and I know it is good for me. Or a "I am eating this wheat-free bread, because I know it is good for me".

[Obelix]

well I would love to get together with you and others on here

and have a séance

I bet you would **** yourself

 

Is that a serious offer?

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2014 at 16:48 ----------

 

Or a "I am eating this wheat-free bread, because I know it is good for me".

 

That would presumably depend on you knowing you are gluten intolerant...