The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God

[ridery99]

It is scary if a nation has no belief, or the nation destroys belief which was rooted in the heart of all the people for several centuries.

Of course, change is always scary, most especially when you can't see the past horizon. But it's folly to fear the inevitable. Change is the only constant, and now the world is changing faster than ever before.

We must learn to embrace change, because it has surely embraced us.

Sounds like a religion 

[1715294068]

1715294068

[1715294068]

1715294068

[1715294068]

1715294068

[1715294068]

1715294068

[TECSHARE]

It is scary if a nation has no belief, or the nation destroys belief which was rooted in the heart of all the people for several centuries.

Of course, change is always scary, most especially when you can't see the past horizon. But it's folly to fear the inevitable. Change is the only constant, and now the world is changing faster than ever before.

We must learn to embrace change, because it has surely embraced us.

Sounds like a religion 

Of course it does. Liathon is so venomously intolerant of religion because it is competition for his own religion, the religion of the totalitarian socialist state. He even uses religious imagery and phrases in his arguments thinking it makes him look cool and ironic, but in reality it just shows us all what a hypocritical dope he is.

[Beliathon]

Of course it does. Liathon is so venomously intolerant of religion because it is competition for his own religion

Religion is technically in competition with science, but only in the same farcical way that the Amish are in "competition" with Amazon.com for furniture sales. Or the way stone tablets are in "competition" with computers for information storage.

You have no hope, theists, none at all.

[TECSHARE]

Of course it does. Liathon is so venomously intolerant of religion because it is competition for his own religion

Religion is technically in competition with science, but only in the same sad meaningless irrelevant way that the Amish are in "competition" with Amazon.com for furniture sales. Or the way stone tablets are in "competition" with computers.

You have no hope, theists, none at all.

There you go again selectively editing my quotes to fit your argument, then "agreeing" with me in order to attempt to subsidize my viewpoint as your own in a pathetic attempt to try to make me look self contradictory.

Socialism requires the destruction of all religion, because under socialism the state is the highest authority, not any concept of spirituality or humanity. The question really isn't if you believe in God, but if you believe the state should have the authority of God. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, unless of course you are a totalitarian socialist. In that case you will say anything to destroy any form of religion because it challenges the universal supremacy of the force of the state, and challenges your own state centered religious dogma and faith based worship of socialism.

This is not progressive... this is taking the same lump of shit and putting it on a different loaf of bread and pretending that some how, by the miracle of socialism, it is not shit any more.

[g1974ak]

Socialism requires the destruction of all religion, because under socialism the state is the highest authority, not any concept of spirituality or humanity. The question really isn't if you believe in God, but if you believe the state should have the authority of God. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, unless of course you are a totalitarian socialist. In that case you will say anything to destroy any form of religion because it challenges the universal supremacy of the force of the state, and challenges your own state centered religious dogma and faith based worship of socialism.

This is not progressive... this is taking the same lump of shit and putting it on a different loaf of bread and pretending that some how, by the miracle of socialism, it is not shit any more.

That's correct. I lived in a country in which socialism was the dominant dogma for more than 40 years. The people, under the guide of party has abolished the religion for about 30 years. But yet religion was not dead even the state wanted the substituted of religion with new dogmas: the creation of the new men without the chains of the believing. But with the fall of the regime the religion flourished immediately. Religion is within every man. Even those who don't believe in God believe in something else. Me, for example, believe in the human mind.

[BADecker]

Socialism requires the destruction of all religion, because under socialism the state is the highest authority, not any concept of spirituality or humanity. The question really isn't if you believe in God, but if you believe the state should have the authority of God. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, unless of course you are a totalitarian socialist. In that case you will say anything to destroy any form of religion because it challenges the universal supremacy of the force of the state, and challenges your own state centered religious dogma and faith based worship of socialism.

This is not progressive... this is taking the same lump of shit and putting it on a different loaf of bread and pretending that some how, by the miracle of socialism, it is not shit any more.

That's correct. I lived in a country in which socialism was the dominant dogma for more than 40 years. The people, under the guide of party has abolished the religion for about 30 years. But yet religion was not dead even the state wanted the substituted of religion with new dogmas: the creation of the new men without the chains of the believing. But with the fall of the regime the religion flourished immediately. Religion is within every man. Even those who don't believe in God believe in something else. Me, for example, believe in the human mind.

Does the human mind go on after death? The only evidence that we have for something like this, comes from outside the human mind. Science doesn't say it at all! Obviously, there are greater religions than the human mind.

[Beliathon]

Does the human mind go on after death?

No. Biology teaches us that brain cells die within three to seven minutes after cardiac failure. Nature is extremely efficient at breaking down human corpses. Decomposition is well under way by the time burial or cremation occurs. However, the exact rate of decomposition depends to some extent on environmental conditions.

Decomposition in the air is twice as fast as when the body is under water and four times as fast as underground. Corpses are preserved longer when buried deeper, as long as the ground isn't waterlogged.

[ridery99]

Does the human mind go on after death?

No. Biology teaches us that brain cells die within three to seven minutes after cardiac failure. Nature is extremely efficient at breaking down human corpses. Decomposition is well under way by the time burial or cremation occurs. However, the exact rate of decomposition depends to some extent on environmental conditions.

Decomposition in the air is twice as fast as when the body is under water and four times as fast as underground. Corpses are preserved longer when buried deeper, as long as the ground isn't waterlogged.

Are you autistic? 

[Beliathon]

Are you autistic?

Nope, I fall within the median standard deviation on the autistic spectrum. That's one of the first decent questions you've asked me, though! Not at all a bad guess.

[BADecker]

Does the human mind go on after death?

No. Biology teaches us that brain cells die within three to seven minutes after cardiac failure. Nature is extremely efficient at breaking down human corpses. Decomposition is well under way by the time burial or cremation occurs. However, the exact rate of decomposition depends to some extent on environmental conditions.

Decomposition in the air is twice as fast as when the body is under water and four times as fast as underground. Corpses are preserved longer when buried deeper, as long as the ground isn't waterlogged.

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

[Beliathon]

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[BADecker]

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

With regard to this current subject, what exactly are you saying?

[Beliathon]

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

With regard to this current subject, what exactly are you saying?

I'm saying the idea that human mind can operate outside the human brain is an extraordinarily wild claim, and therefore requires extraordinarily solid evidence to support its belief.

[BADecker]

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

With regard to this current subject, what exactly are you saying?

I'm saying the idea that human mind can operate outside the human brain is an extraordinarily wild claim, and therefore requires extraordinarily solid evidence to support it.

image

You are claiming it, then, right?

After all, claiming that we don't know, as I claimed, is not the same as claiming that it is fact, like you seem to be claiming.

[the joint]

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

With regard to this current subject, what exactly are you saying?

I'm saying the idea that human mind can operate outside the human brain is an extraordinarily wild claim, and therefore requires extraordinarily solid evidence to support its belief.

Quantify your self-evident experience of subjectivity.

[1aguar]

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Actually, "there is extraordinary evidence of spirits or the afterlife". Furthermore, "Materialism can be shown to be false by empirical evidence and logical arguments. Materialism is not a Rational Philosophy."

Of course, "Some religious leaders reject psychic phenomena because those phenomena threaten the dogmatic teachings of their religion. It undermines their authority as the source of information on the afterlife, God, and other spiritual subjects. In some cases it also subverts their role as an intermediary between the individual and supernatural entities."

Now for more on this "extraordinary evidence":

There is a fundamental difficulty in convincing people to change their minds by presenting them with evidence... people only require a tenuous hypothesis to explain away the evidence. This is human nature. It is the real meaning behind the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". That phrase is not about the scientific method, it is about human psychology. This is why, for a pseudo-skeptic, it is so easy to fall back on the last bastions of skepticism, claiming the researchers are committing fraud, they are incompetent, or they are victims of deception in order to explain the researcher's observations of paranormal phenomena.

The skeptic often feels that in order for him to accept a new belief, there must be proof of it. If he can hypothesize a possible flaw in the evidence, he will not consider the evidence proof even if there is no evidence that flaw has a real effect... if one considers the many scientific controversies of the past, one will see that whether or not a possible though untested flaw in the evidence is sufficient to dismiss a conclusion based on the evidence is very often a matter of opinion.

This suggests that what constitutes an "extraordinary" claim is subjective.

Due to the subjective nature of identifying extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof, all this notion really means is that if someone has strongly held beliefs, they will resist giving up those beliefs. It is an observation about human nature not a requirement determined by the nature of scientific inquiry. In fact, it is an observation about a characteristic of human nature which interferes with scientific progress.

Source for the quotes:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies

Often skeptics will state that there is no evidence for the afterlife, or psychic phenomena, or God. However, there is plenty of evidence for the afterlife and psychic phenomena.

There is also evidence of God. This evidence comes from mediums and people who have had Near Death Experiences, including veridical near death experiences, who obtain information that they could not have obtained with their normal senses. Some of this information is often verifiable and proves accurate. Therefore, the information they obtain that is not easily verified, such as information about the existence of God, may also be accurate. This is particularly true when many sources agree, and many such sources do agree that God exists.

If a skeptic can't explain why the evidence doesn't convince him, if he can't explain what is wrong with the evidence, then he probably doesn't really know what the evidence is, or he is not really trying to understand the evidence, or he has no valid argument against the evidence.

The points on the near-death site give a good overview of the evidence. You should tell this thread exactly why the evidence does not convince you. The first point is about the famous Pam Reynolds case; she underwent a surgical procedure called hypothermic cardiac arrest. "In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced an NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be true." If you know so much about what "biology teaches us", why don't you try and explain it, along with the 51 other salient points of evidence on the near-death site.

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html

No. Biology teaches us that brain cells die within three to seven minutes after cardiac failure.

Quoting from the near-death site:

"The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's destroyed. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences ... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't know what's happening and the brain isn't working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won't remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [an NDE], you come out with clear, lucid memories ... This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact."

"The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the quality of the oneness in the universe."

[1aguar]

Clearing up the confusion on the subjects of sex and God:
I was happy to see a thread on Reddit recently discussing the "mystery" of the Phoenix Journals and related writings. They were asking the question "How was this prodigious output (a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total) covering such a wide range of topics, possible?

Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer.

Almost everything coming forth in truth is that which NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR! HOWEVER, WITH IT COMES THE SOLUTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS---AND ALWAYS THE GRACE OF CREATOR AND THE UNLIMITED FORGIVENESS, LOVE AND PLACEMENT.

When man and woman desire the oneness of each other they should try first to become one in energy intent. You have almost no intimacy in your relationships as you now practice them. "Sex" is not intimacy. What the Law indicates is need for total RESPONSIBILITY of your actions and not carelessly hopping into the “hay" to romp around without thought to the impact either on the partner or the possible outcome of the relationship. Your heart will know of the difference. Sometimes one partner or the other might---in love--wish to “accommodate” the other but this is rare indeed, for the level of “mutual” response is far differing both in the sexes and the emotions. It is most rare indeed that one “gives” to the other in total love--it is usually more that “I may get something later if I cooperate now."

The point, of course, is that the sexual union does have a purpose and man has forgotten that love” is far more than ten or fifteen minutes of pleasure. Love has really nothing to do with it for it is simply a body function--- further it is the one body function that has pulled down your entire civilization over and over again. It is also that God desires you raise yourself above the level of non-thinking animal and assume thoughtful responsibility for your actions. In the ultimate union there is shared intent of purpose and the total consideration of one for the other and it all takes care quite nicely, of itself.

Most "groups" and doctrines are pretty sure their truth will not measure up to this truth and in fact, most will certainly not do so. Rather than adjust and make an even greater contribution, however, they will set about discrediting.

Man is curious about that which is denounced, banned and censored and will seek dilligently until he can find out all about the matter--never be distressed at those who throw stones, especially in public media, etc., for they do you great favor. We speak truth and you have naught to fear for it is intended that it shall find ear and eye.

It may not be what ones "wish" to hear, but it will be truth and the hearts of man shall know it!

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/90-01-04.pdf

Abstinence IS the only positive means of birth control. Mankind has acted irresponsibly and the consequences are everywhere.
I am quoting from these writings to clear up the confusion about God and sex; if there are questions, I am happy to answer.

[1aguar]

The struggle that we need to undertake is the struggle to see the way in which I constantly lie to myself. It is the struggle to be inwardly sincere. It is this seeing, a process that also requires the support of my body and feelings (for my sensations and feelings can also lie), that can free me from my habitual preoccupations, expectations, and beliefs—those powerful psychological states that keep me from experiencing myself and the world in the fullness of the present moment. But as anyone who has tried knows, the effort to be inwardly sincere brings with it suffering, real suffering, the immediate, painful experience of the many ways in which I cut myself off from the truth. This experience, as difficult as it is, also brings with it a great sense of freedom and joy, a sense of returning home from exile.

"Awakening to the Miracle of Ordinary Life"

[TECSHARE]

Socialism requires the destruction of all religion, because under socialism the state is the highest authority, not any concept of spirituality or humanity. The question really isn't if you believe in God, but if you believe the state should have the authority of God. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, unless of course you are a totalitarian socialist. In that case you will say anything to destroy any form of religion because it challenges the universal supremacy of the force of the state, and challenges your own state centered religious dogma and faith based worship of socialism.

This is not progressive... this is taking the same lump of shit and putting it on a different loaf of bread and pretending that some how, by the miracle of socialism, it is not shit any more.

That's correct. I lived in a country in which socialism was the dominant dogma for more than 40 years. The people, under the guide of party has abolished the religion for about 30 years. But yet religion was not dead even the state wanted the substituted of religion with new dogmas: the creation of the new men without the chains of the believing. But with the fall of the regime the religion flourished immediately. Religion is within every man. Even those who don't believe in God believe in something else. Me, for example, believe in the human mind.

Does the human mind go on after death? The only evidence that we have for something like this, comes from outside the human mind. Science doesn't say it at all! Obviously, there are greater religions than the human mind.

Way to ignore a perfectly good discussion about the dangers of Liathon's socialist dogmas and create yet another unresolvable discussion about God, allowing Liathon to make sure the actual points he has no response to get pushed off of the page yet again.

[1aguar]

Karl Marx's own definition of Humanism reads:
"Humanism is the denial of God, and the total affirmation of man... Humanism is really nothing else but Marxism"
--Karl Marx, ECONOMIC POLITIQUE ET PHILOSOPHIE, VOL. I, PAGES 38-40.