Suicides don't go to heaven but murder's do?

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Castout

There's a saying or idiom in science or investgation that most people seem to have forgotten: When you have eliminated the impossible(those that have proved wrong), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
So before you dismiss something without basis and only under assumptions you're not being logical at all.

Actually that's not an idiom of scientific investigation. Not even logical really when you think about it. You sound as naiive as Victor Zammit on his afterlife ramblings. Science dictates that you must have evidence to back up what you're saying; otherwise, you're nothing but talk. In short, you're claiming that you saw Jesus and that he does exist because you saw him- nothing more. I could claim that I saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster last night and that because I saw him he exists. But that would be all talk and no empirical substance, now wouldn't it? The burden of proof rests with you- the person who is asserting that something exists and is factual.

Science doesn't even bother commenting on such irrational and comical things as the supernatural anyway. Ghosts, magic and witchcraft, angels and demons . . . These things are fun to believe in, but they don't exist. Not in this reality anyway. Plenty of people claim they exist, but that's all they do. They never prove their existence with experiments or tests.

And no- I am being logical, as well as rational. And the simple fact of the matter is you are claiming that you saw an apparition of Jesus without providing any evidence for your statement. Then you claim that he exists and is as real as the rest of us are. You expect us to take your word for granted, but why should we? You've given us no reason to.

Oh- and here's one of Zammit's videos:

Originally Posted by Castout

Whatever, the most important thing is I have testified whether people accept it is their own business.

If you presented this kind of a testimony in front of a court, everybody in the room would burst out into laughter. Because it would not be practical! Like I said, you'd be expecting us all to just take your word for it. That kind of logic would be getting convicted murderers out of prison. They said that they didn't do it, so they must be telling the truth. Ignore all the contradicting evidence; let 'em go, baliff! With you, you're asking us to ignore your astounding LACK of evidence.

Originally Posted by Castout

I'm not looking for recognition or anything like that at all. In fact Had I wanted recognition I would probably have preferred not to testify at all.

Then why bother bringing it up? You've either got some underlying motive here or you're out of your damn mind if you think you saw a magic man who's supposedly been dead for 2,000 years according to a book that says the planet is 6,000 years old and we all came from two people who damned our entire species because the woman, made from the man's rib (who was made from dust), took and ate an apple from a cursed tree at the will of a talking snake who was really an evil guy named Satan in control of the domain of the damned- Hell-- with a ball of light for a head.

Originally Posted by Castout

And who the hell define what is real or not? Mass or the majority of people's experience?

How about facts? They're undeniable. Well- you can deny them, but you'd be incorrect to do so. For example, gravity is real. Throw something into the air and watch it fall. At 9.81 meters per second squared. I am real. I think, I breathe, I need to eat and drink or else I'll die, and I've been roaming the earth for 53 years as a member of the species we call Homo sapien. This planet is real. You walk upon the ground and feel its hard surface beneath your feet; you breathe the oxygen that makes up 21% of it's atmosphere. You know with this kind of "Is this real?" thinking, you should write a book that's a sequel to Alice in Wonderland.

Originally Posted by Castout

That wouldn't be wise wouldn't it?

Relying on words alone and not empirical confirmation wouldn't be wise...

Originally Posted by Castout

Couple centuries ago most people thought the world was flat.

Actually, we've known since Copernicus' time that the planet was not flat. Thanks to the Church, however, and the statements in the Bible about Earth's place in the universe and solar system, it was punishable by death to say otherwise... because you were "contradicting God's divinity". They'd burn men of science at the stake because they were heretics challenging their childish and ancient mythological ideas with actual proof, instead of relying solely on the words of a fairy tale book.

Originally Posted by Castout

So do you think that the world is flat was a reality even then when most people believe it?

No- because I'd be one of the people asking, "Where's your proof for this?"

I'd be executed as a heretic for this, along with other men of science, but there's a time to stand up for what you believe in a put your principles above personal gain.

Originally Posted by Castout

Pushed further back in time most people thought the sun was traveling in the sky or that the earth was the center of the universe and every astronomical object revolves around it.

Yeah- we call those people "philosophers". Even they thought that either a heliocentric or geocentric solar system was possible. Why Plato even argued it in his student lectures about astronomy.

Originally Posted by Castout

Does majority belief make them a reality even then?

Nope. Does the majority of belief in a Christian god make it reality?

Nope. Belief does not constitute fact. Never. Belief is nothing more than a form of opinion.

Originally Posted by Castout

So what is reality?

The state of existence within this dimension; i.e. gravity exists, the solar system exists, animals exist, etc.

Originally Posted by Castout

If you define reality as things perceived by you alone(or even by your own family or by your own tribe, etc) then it's very subjective isn't it but if you define it as the majority of people belief and or perception then it can be misleading.

Which is why we don't define it as that. Which is why some people carry out the scientific method to determine what exists and what doesn't, and to understand its existence (niche in the structure of existence, if you will). Does an experiment support or refute a hypothesis? How many experiments are there that confirm the hypothesis? What evidence exists for the hypothesis? These are questions scientists ask all the time.

Originally Posted by Castout

No one man knows everything in an objective way.

Yeah, and? Nobody would ever be stupid enough to claim this.

Originally Posted by Castout

We each one of us is conditioned by our personal and subjective experience such that no man can claim to have known reality at all unless that man claims to have known everything!

Exactly why people don't claim that you're right or wrong when you make a claim that you're able to perform telekenesis, or in your case have seen Jesus. We simple ask, "Where's your evidence?" You've either got it or you don't. If you don't, then there's no valid reason to believe you. It's contradictory, actually.

Originally Posted by Castout

We CERTAINLY can't tell what is real or not for sure with respect to what other people are experiencing without a thorough investigation and even investigation could fail to reveal the truth behind.

I can tell that someone here has been neglecting to take their meds... your previous statements have made it quite clear that you have no concept at all of what existence within the universe is or reality. Bandying words aside, you can tell what is real or not for sure. You do it by performing a test. If someone asserts something as fact, you ask for their evidence. If they don't have any, then you can always test what they're proclaiming as fact. That guy who claimed he could move objects with his mind (which he dubbed the "Hutchinson Effect") was tested by being given various items- which he was then told to move with his mind. He couldn't. The simple conclusion: he cannot move objects with his mind. Nobody can. He's a human, just like the rest of us. If you think somebody else can, go out and prove it. This isn't rocket science; it's very basic high school science know-how.

Originally Posted by Castout

Sometime ago atom was defined as the smallest particle of a mass then now we have identified sub atomic particles.

This is not true. Atoms were defined as the smallest KNOWN particles. The keyword being KNOWN. Now, scientists are testing for the Higgs-Boson particle to confirm its existence, which would confirm their hypothesis that there is in fact something smaller than atoms. The scientific method at work.

Originally Posted by Castout

I'm saying that even our knowledge(science) things that we have proved by the mantra of logical discernment is DYNAMIC and CHANGING due to the fact that we are GROWING in knowledge.

Wow... that's... not new lol. This has been the idea behind science since its infancy thousands of years ago. That it is a "living" concept.

Originally Posted by Castout

So today knowledge could be a past misconception tomorrow and vice versa.

Well until it is proven to be, this is irrelevant. And there's nothing which has shown it to be. I'll say it again, this is how science has been working since its conception ages ago.

Originally Posted by Castout

I read a sad story in the newspaper sometime ago about a child or toddler being raised by cats. She behaved just like cats. So to her reality she was a cat. Does that make it true?

She's mimicking them; that's normal for all young humans. Since she was exposed to an environment filled with cats (and dogs; you're thinking of the Siberian girl), she behaves like them. That's like those "talking parrots". They don't talk, they're mimicking the sounds they're exposed to.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Castout

Hmmm I can assure you that I would even pass a lie detector if tested on this matter. So it's either I'm a complete delusional or HONEST.

Originally Posted by Castout

Basically I went through a horrific ordeal in 2002 caused by people in power in Singapore while I was doing my tertiary education there. In the end I was starved and refused call in their hospital for 3 days (until I was so thin) with a broken hand and injury to my spine and was only given food after I demanded to them as I was fed up being starved and it was a public hospital so I potentially could attract attention. I've been defamed as being schizophrenic which is of course a lie to cover up the ordeal.

Oh- that's not schizophrenia then. Your "vision" of Jesus was a hallucination, brought on by acute stress on the body (i.e. your lack of food and water). It's a natural response that the body goes through when put under acute levels of stress. That's like castaways who think they can see ships and such on the horizon after being adrift at sea without food or water for days. In most cases, they succumb to thirst first and they drink seawater. Due to the high salt content, it dehydrates their bodies even more, and causes them to hallucinate more and act even more irrational. Very common among survivors of the USS Indianapolis, to name a prevalent example.

When I was in the war, there were plenty of times we were low on rations- and under constant strain from the Iraqis. Hallucinations were very common; later, you had people suffering from things like shellshock and psychosis as a result of the strain. I've hallucinated before, because I've gotten overheated and haven't properly hydrated myself or protected my skin from constant exposure to the sun's rays.

EDIT:

Out of curiosity- why did the police detain you in Singapore? They had a reason, obviously. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered to have taken you to the hospital at all.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Then why bother bringing it up? You've either got some underlying motive here or you're out of your damn mind if you think you saw a magic man who's supposedly been dead for 2,000 years according to a book that says the planet is 6,000 years old and we all came from two people who damned our entire species because the woman, made from the man's rib (who was made from dust), took and ate an apple from a cursed tree at the will of a talking snake who was really an evil guy named Satan in control of the domain of the damned- Hell-- with a ball of light for a head.

ROFLMAO!!!

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Then why bother bringing it up? You've either got some underlying motive here or you're out of your damn mind if you think you saw a magic man who's supposedly been dead for 2,000 years according to a book that says the planet is 6,000 years old and we all came from two people who damned our entire species because the woman, made from the man's rib (who was made from dust), took and ate an apple from a cursed tree at the will of a talking snake who was really an evil guy named Satan in control of the domain of the damned- Hell-- with a ball of light for a head.

Nowhere in the bible is the type of fruit specified, cant recall where the apple thing comes from, but thats nonsense from outside the bible. Then again, the bible is mostly full of nonsense with a few good ideas thrown in, like every other religious book I have read.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Nowhere in the bible is the type of fruit specified, cant recall where the apple thing comes from, but thats nonsense from outside the bible. Then again, the bible is mostly full of nonsense with a few good ideas thrown in, like every other religious book I have read.

Maybe they just left it out and someone who new about the apple part has kept the story alive. I mean, didnt church "edit" the bible quite abit during the years? Take stuff out or just dont include whole letters. Or is that just some conspiracy stuff, cant remember where I heard about it once.

[Task Force]

wait... if all human life started with 2 people... THEN WERE ALL INBREEDERS!!!

I wounder how many people have actualy edited the bible.

PS dowly... your sig... lol

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Task Force

wait... if all human life started with 2 people... THEN WERE ALL INBREEDERS!!!

Yes, I've though about that aswell. We should all be more or less disfigured if the bible was true.

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Yes, I've though about that aswell. We should all be more or less disfigured if the bible was true.

lol... yea...

And if the ark thingy was true... then whered all that water go, did god pull a plug in the ocean floor we dont know about... lol

theres so mutch stuff that is 100% not possiable...

Religion was a really good way to control people back then tho...

[Dowly]

Aye, true all that.

You know, I've been pondering. What if Jesus was the first ever conartist. You know the type who supposedly do a surgery with bare hands. People back then were very superstisious (or whatsamacallit), so maybe they just took it abit too seriously and blew it out of proportions.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Nowhere in the bible is the type of fruit specified, cant recall where the apple thing comes from, but thats nonsense from outside the bible.

Well it originates from the early Church's Biblical scholars. Apples, as you're well aware I assume, are symbols in European myth of destruction and condemnation- which is exactly what happened to us according to the Bible after they ate the fruit the tree gave. Either way the type of fruit is not important in the long run. The talking snake-Satan impersonation, dustman and ribwoman, damned and cursed tree, cosmic Jewish zombie, and 6,000-year-old Earth parts remain.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Then again, the bible is mostly full of nonsense with a few good ideas thrown in, like every other religious book I have read.

Or every other thing you've ever read. The Bible's morals and ethics are almost all borrowed from that of the older Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi. Even the "eye for an eye" part is included in it! For that matter, Utnapishtim's Ark from those same people eclipses the Biblical story of Noah's Ark in age by about 1,500 years.

These religions all borrow certain aspects from the older ones while throwing a few new ones in there. They're all basically the same in having a beginning telling how the universe began, having an ending dictating what will happen to us all in death and when the end of the world comes, having an antagonist and protagonist, etc.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

That depends, did they do it in allah's name? I hear you get great results if you do it in allah's name, like a free buffet ticket on fridays, or a coupon for a free swanson pork potpie.

"Allah" is just Arabic for "God". He's not really even a separate entity from the god of the Bible, either.