Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/16/11 02:50 PM, JordanD wrote: Yes, and everything is formless as vibrations of universe get faster and faster. Were at an incredibly dense wavelength of the percieved universe. It looks much different when you're experiencing higher realms.

Either you don't know what point it is I was making there or you're intentionally disregarding it. So which is it?

No, they are more cosmic and transcend mankind.

So they're not man made because they allege things concerning transcendance and the cosmos?

If what you're going for is total complete understanding of how the universe works, then yes, it's absolutely very complex.

If you look at something abstractly, it's simple. If you look at something in more depth, it becomes more complicated. This isn't unique to the belief system you're pushing nor is it uncharacteristic of man made ideas.

Not at all. The electromagnetic spectrum is within the low frequency that were in right now.

So they entire electromagnetic spectrum propagates at a wavelength of about 7cm?

The problem with that is that spirit is something that trancends through all of the dimensions, and cannot be measured in such ways.

Hello there mr.seam.

It is measured through sacred Geometry.

As oppose to science?

No, but i just went over that.

Then to where are you going?

Do you maintain that the 7cmish wavelength is essentially 'where we are'?

Yes, from my understanding of it.

And that 7cm-ish wavelength was found by those Bell guys right?

i don't really get how it works myself. [...] But it doesn't matter, and i don't really care HOW it works, because i've been to these higher realms and have a more conscious understanding of how it works.

1) you don't really care how it works, 2) you don't really get how it works, 3) and the truth of your greater assertion stands regardless...

... and for these reasons such detail according to you doesn't matter...

... so why is it such a big deal to admit that you're misrepresenting science or relinquish such detail as proof?

...yes..? Physically..yes.

How about lower wavelengths?

This will be too hard to explain in a post. It'll have to be understood through spirit science.

We're going to be in the 4th dimension ome 2012 when we shift consciousness aren't we?

I don't see the correlation between this scenario and what i'm saying.

So then there's no harm is telling me what's wrong with the picture, if anything.

At 4/16/11 08:47 AM, jak3434 wrote: No, but she easily could.

Oh ok, so you're still around...

Why not cut recreationally, rather than only to cope?

Why advertise that you cut?

At 4/16/11 08:42 AM, JordanD wrote: What i've learned recently is that Spirit is incredibly simple

Well you certainly haven't shown that. You've been convoluted and nonsensical on several occasions. Actually, when I called you out for being nonsensical you went and told me this, "You should hear the descriptions of even higher levels of consciousness. It's like, everything is formless, you are conscious of everywhere and everything. I can't comprehend how that would be, i don't think anyone can at this point in time." So certainly don't imply that it's obvious either.

much more simple than the twisted man-made ideas that we've had for so long now.

Your ideas aren't man made?

You've also made the case that you're just looking at the big picture. Perceived simplicity be symptomatic of such a limited mode of expression. For instance, those wavelengths you're on about again have a bit more to them than 'the seven colours of the rainbow.'

This is exactly how the universe is too.

Is the electromagnetic spectrum an analogy for the stratification of dimensions or not?

Modern science has trouble finding out about this

Then don't say it's a seamless relationship between faith and science.

because they're using tools to measure only what's in our physical level of universe. And while we can measure wavelengths like gamma rays and electromagnetic waves, it's not something you can really understand until you go there.

Are you suggesting that gamma rays an electromagnetic waves are in another dimension when you say we can't understand them until we go there?

Do you maintain that the 7cmish wavelength is essentially 'where we are'?

Are electromagnetic waves and gamma rays propagating at higher wavelengths than our own?

Do you think we'll be able to see electromagnetic waves some day?

***

Suppose we have a claim such as.... "a rubber balloon will float in water when properly inflated (with commonplace air)"

No suppose I provide the following explanation for this phenomenon... "There are little human beings in the air inside the balloon, treading a small amount of water at the base that naturally permeates the rubber."

Is there anything wrong with this picture to you?

How about these....

Why advertise that you cut?

Why not cut recreationally? Why apparently only for coping?

At 4/16/11 01:24 AM, jak3434 wrote: It does relieve stress. Yes it is more specific.

So let's try this again... why cut as oppose to doing those other things (when you're depressed or numb or need to cope or feel outside yourself)? Appeals such as 'everyone does it' don't really answer the question.

At 4/16/11 01:18 AM, jak3434 wrote: Dont get me wrong. I still do all those other thing(except TV). But cutting is when Im depressed or feel numb from the world. Its just a way to cope with things.

So it's a bit more specific than "relieving stress" then isn't it?

Well, it's interesting. He does however neglect that the model is misleading at either relative extreme. This is particularly clear when he's talking about how subsequent doubles... well... exceed the previous value by an entire 'whole.' He makes it sound like a really big deal, but it doesn't necessarily translate to the human scale. What's one cheerio vs two vs four? Not much (yet).

At 4/16/11 01:05 AM, jak3434 wrote: Believe it or not, most people self injure to relive stress. Some people workout, some people watch TV, people here fap, I cut. But nowhere near here extent.

Ok. So why cut as oppose to doing those other things?

At 4/16/11 12:55 AM, jak3434 wrote: I do do it to myself

So uh... why?

At 4/13/11 08:19 PM, Cericon wrote: 65 is passing and is therefore not a bad score.

You seem to be confused between "not bad" and "borderline incompetent".

I did NAT say I knew the answer I did NAAAAT.

Oh hai cache.

DAMN YOU SCIENCE!

Gah double posting, but this shit is wearing on me.

We start with "the only cost is courage." That gets ramped up to a ridiculous "I'm threatening everything you (royal) know." And then immediately gets chased with a substantially smaller claim to try and give the larger two legitimacy. Fucking shifty.

I could make a website, scrawl "God is sending you to hell" across it, and be well within reason to make the same claim that it just might maybe to some people be threatening. But that's by no means what the greater claims intend to get across. It's not about making the point that at least someone out there will need courage to read your site. It's about playing your shit up as being so god damn profound that everyone and their dog who don't share your views are going to get their minds blown the fuck out.

Above all. It's a cheap dare. Like a sign that says "enter if you dare" on the entrance to a haunted house attraction.

None of this shit needs to be explained, but god forbid anyone even begins to suggest your shit is just more words in a pile of words on the internet. Sell mode on! Tell me how you're deconstructing the very fiber of my being!

At 4/13/11 11:15 PM, anarchei wrote: When people are faced with knowledge that threatens everything they know

*sigh*

One day one of you will drop the act. That'll be a nice day.

At 4/13/11 10:50 PM, anarchei wrote: Yes, I got that much. What I was really asking was: How did you come to that conclusion?

Perhaps the use of positive buzzwords to hype, passively, something distinct from them. And then the subsequent aggrandizement of your theories as requiring courage.

It's a sales pitch. And I'm tired of sales pitches - extra tired when I first responded to this thread.

At 4/13/11 02:45 AM, anarchei wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The implication is that you're talking out your ass, mr.naturalistic-fallacy.

At 4/13/11 09:55 PM, Addict wrote: Let's just say Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

You tread with great care now.

At 4/13/11 09:40 PM, Warforger wrote: "Humans are very spe-cial cre-ations, made in the image of God - who cre-ated every-thing in the whole Uni-verse. We gain ful-fil-ment only when we find out what He desires for our lives, and then fol-low that divine plan."

http://freedomu.anarchei.me/1-human-natu re/

That seems pretty suspicious.

You have to click on it to see anarchei's response. They're bottled call&response.

At 4/13/11 09:00 PM, Addict wrote: In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion".

Would you mind giving that aspect up?

For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally.

Transcendentalism, dogmatism, and social cohesion are not inherently religious, though religion may implicate those things.

Hey, aren't you the guy who's about to decry misleading generalities? So whats with the "I'm going to call everything religion" tactic?

In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".

Surely we can't separate cows from dogs, they both have fur.

At 4/13/11 08:08 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/13/11 04:22 AM, WolvenBear wrote: We ARE talking about my gunshot analogy.

The tangent up until this point was expressly regarding the above quoted argument of yours

This one "IF (and I usually capitalize if too) it is true...then the claim is undeniable." which I deleted when trimming my post. Whoops.

At 4/13/11 04:22 AM, WolvenBear wrote: We ARE talking about my gunshot analogy.

The tangent up until this point was expressly regarding the above quoted argument of yours, at least on this side of the computer screen. And the two arguments are clearly not equivalent.

So, regarding the logical construct: (Variation A) If a story, including the claim, is true, then the claim is true [ undeniable ]. (Variation B) If the claim within the story is true, then the claim is true [ undeniable ]. (Variation C) If a story, including the claim, is completely true, then it proves that JordanD is right.

Variation A is faulty logic. Variation B is a truism. Variation C functions upon the truism in variation B. And none of them address the criticism toward the story that JordanD presented.

The criticism is that the claim is presumptuous - i.e. that there is not sufficient ground to say the claim is true. Arguing that JordanD is right if the story is completely true just blows right by that. That's why I'm making such a big deal about the skepticism/belief distinction.

If the claim is that A=/=B, then the example of ONE case the the contrary proves this theory wrong.

If we have a claim that A is never B, and then one example whereby A is alleged to be B, the example does not prove the original claim wrong.

So, the claim was that it was it was impossible to cure Cancer without therapy.

No it wasn't nor isn't.

The claim was and is, as a criticism of the claim that [ the woman cured her cancer by will alone (i.e. via the principles of the law of attraction) ], that there is no reputable or valid science behind the criticized claim (indicated by the request for reputable or valid science corroborating the alleged potency of her thoughts).

I see no way around it. If a woman has cancer, and gets better, without treatment....

Well, what the hell else is there? Did the tooth fairy cure it?

You know that's a fallacy.

No, unfortunately I am just carrying my frustration over to you. And I do apologize for that. It's not your fault that I have gotten frustrated with other stupid objections. Moving on...

I'm pretty sure I'm on your bad side by now again :P

The case is interesting. I'd like to see SOMETHING that takes it to task.

Hasn't part of your case been that it can't ethically be taken to task?

However, after over 200 yahoo results, I get bored. That even most skeptical sites are very muted in their criticism speaks to me.

How? What of your position does it alter?

If anyone has something to the contrary (which I asked for 4 pages ago), I'd love to see it.

What do you mean by contrary? Alternative explanations?

But instead of even trying, I just keep reading blatant distortions of what I said.

You can chalk that up to the contexts under which you said them. No really.

JordanD's story of the woman with cancer (and her husband) are intended to serve as proof of the same family of phenomena (in some cases the exact same phenomena) allegedly illustrated in the following (all presented by JordanD, I think prior to your arrival)...

1. Feeling like he had $1000 caused his friend to give him a heads up about a job for $1000 minimum.
2. The hundredth monkey (psychic linkage).
3. The Philadelphia experiment.
4. And in his flash, I think, Emoto's thought flakes.

This is relevant on the assumption that you're not being a troll or playing devil's advocate.

Even ignoring that I am not the most civil debater...there is no reason to question my honesty here.

As issues arise that cause me the wonder how genuine you're being, I'll express them with reason, as I did in my last post to you. At the time of closing this thread, I've none other that what I've already expressed.

but I speak what I believe, and stand by what I say.

That's good to know. I think of myself rather similarly.

At 4/13/11 12:30 AM, anarchei wrote: promoting reason and evidence.

learning experience on the subject of freedom.

The only cost is the courage to explore.

Why does it seem that absolutely no one is willing to talk out of their mouth these days?

Don't worry Funk, you'll always be edgy to me.

At 4/12/11 01:53 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 4/11/11 06:10 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Science is a lie.

And it's made of gummy bears.

Don't mind Funk, he's just saying something we already know in an inflammatory way.

At 4/11/11 05:51 PM, Damien wrote: Religion and science need to stop this shit and come in an agreement.

If only science would give up on its stupid Occam's razor bullshit.

At 4/11/11 05:17 PM, SplitTheAtomOfG wrote: I believe (I hope I'm not causing offense) that religion is the main factor of wars in the past and that it was only there so that people didn't feel insecure about the possibility that there might have been nothing to begin with or that we are the only species that matter. I think that it is unnecessary in modern society, except for positives like Diwali, Easter, Christmas and the temples and churches etc...

Uhhh... how exactly would disinformation, belittlement, and a teaspoon of irreverence (in that order) not cause offense?

At 4/11/11 05:22 PM, JordanD wrote: So as i said before, i was working on a thing to help explain what i'm talking about.

You still don't seem to be getting it.

Suppose we have a claim such as.... "a rubber balloon will float in water when properly inflated (with commonplace air)"

No suppose I provide the following explanation for this phenomenon... "There are little human beings in the air inside the balloon, treading a small amount of water at the base that naturally permeates the rubber."

Is there anything wrong with this picture to you?

At 4/11/11 05:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No, I don't?

Ok. Be more specific, please.

tru·ism (tro%u0305%u0335o%u0305'iz'%u0259m)
noun
a statement the truth of which is obvious or well known; commonplace

While I fail to see how this is a statement that is well known or obvious, the claim is still pretty simple. If the common belief is that one cannot survive a gunshot to the head...the first person who survives a gunshot to the head disproves the commonly believed claim. Maybe I'm using too much logic, but this is a pretty simply thing to me.

We're not talking about your gunshot analogy. We're talking about: "IF (and I usually capitalize if too) it is true...then the claim is undeniable." And I'm referring to tautologies, not colloquialisms.

If this whole truism thing is getting in the way, you can answer this instead (it serves the same purpose): What consequence is this to the dispute? If it did not follow that the claim is undeniable, what would this mean to your (or my) greater argument(s)?

Have you concluded that there has been no substantial error? If so, what weight does skepticism have against a charge that you believe some particular thing?

I don't have access to her medical records.

Finish your thoughts. Tell me how it answers my question and give me the subsequent yes or no.

Do you have a better point?

Wait... what point do you think I'm making?

Look, I'm sorry. I could scratch my ass or look at paint dry, or...well stare off into space as better uses of my time instead of answering hypotheticals that I have already hit on...most of which don't mean anything.

They're not really all that hypothetical, considering most of my "if"s come from implications of things you've said.

But since you seem to be at a loss for their relevance, I guess we'll go through them one by one.

First up. Skepticism vs belief, without ifs.

You have said that, "If a woman refused treatment, and got better, for lack of a better term, she DID will the cancer out of her body."

[ This itself raises the issue of how exactly that constitutes "willing the cancer out of her body," and the fact that this seems to be a shift from the contested claim. ]

This would indicate you believe, at the least, this one aspect of the story.

You have also made the case that faith helps, which, seeming to be a criticism to ours of JordanD's, is either irrelevant or affirming JordanD's claim. You are unclear on this. In that...

... when being charged to have affirmed JordanD's story, you claim you are skeptical. However, it either follows from your skepticism that you are not a believer, or your case for skepticism is a red herring to charge bing made. You seem to have interpreted my argument as some kind of character assassination whereby I make you out to be a dupe. I could understand your emphasis on skepticism as a case against that, but that's not the case I'm making. I actually don't care how skeptical you are unless it dictates your position (as a matter of truth) on this story.

This is relevant on the assumption that you're not being a troll or playing devil's advocate.

At 4/9/11 01:24 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/8/11 08:15 PM, JordanD wrote: ...I don't believe you should refuse bodily treatment... Don't exclude your mind and spirit though... It will help you out most definetily.

quick! to the covering-my-ass mobile!

Apparently we should support the evil big pharma now.

At 4/8/11 08:15 PM, JordanD wrote: As far as cancer and healing goes, it's totally possible- your body heals itself of injuries and wounds and disease all of the time.

Who's disputing that the human body is capable of healing? Who's disputing that the human body plays a role in cancer recovery? Who's disputing that emotional state and outlook play a role in cancer recovery?

Your consciousness is connected through mind, body and spirit, and we know that feeling healthy does keep you healthier and live longer. (We have that study that scientifically proves that).

I see you're keeping with the law of attraction theme here by your translation of "positive attitude" to "feeling healthy" when connecting either to actually being healthy. But you don't think that's dishonest at all.

You also may want to revise your description of consciousness there, since it doesn't actually make sense - or atleast, you never specify what consciousness is connected to, just what it goes through to make the connection.

Why is it so bizarre to think that by feeling healthy in the mind and spirit will not also affect the body?

Presumptions of spirit aside, who are you talking about?

Don't exclude your mind and spirit though. Feel good mentally and all warm and fuzzy inside (spiritually), and allow the healing to take place. It will help you out most definetily.

Sorry, disbelief in the law of attraction and pseudo-quantum-conscious-interventionism does not preclude happy thoughts or positive attitudes. Just because we're not buying what you're selling, doesn't mean we're excluding our minds.

Examples where people have cured cancer and healed spinal injuries are just extreme scenarios where people have really shown the true potential of the mind and spirit.

Actually, examples where people allege to have cured cancer and healed spinal injuries via thought alone (according to some faith-based mechanism) are statistical outliers where substantial scientific proof has yet to be supplied.

Kapish?

What this really shows is that you are infact aware that there is a line to be drawn between science and speculation, because you display an awareness of which side of the line you need to concentrate on to appeal to your current audience. This is despite your sentiment that it all blends together seamlessly, and despite your more subtle attempts to conflate vastly different phenomena. Way to be even more underhanded.

And what happened to the placebo bit?

And when are you going to get back to me on the wavelength issue? - or any of the others you left wide open? Let them drop again and I'm going to go through each, painfully, step by step, with quotes showing where you left ambiguity.