Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if IQ has anything to do with it, but many atheists on the Internet sure try and sound smart. It happens all the time. They use big words, say believers are wrong, and that's pretty much it. I remember getting into a debate with a skeptic once, he called me wrong, but never explained why I was wrong. If I debated further, he usually pulled out personal attacks.
I don't know whether the inherent dishonesty of theist apologetics has anything to do with it, but believers when they have been trounced in a discussion often pop off and log on to another religion site pulling the same old stuff, that atheists tried to sound smart but they couldn't beat me, no sir.
You might start a thread 'prove me wrong, atheist,' and we'll see whether we can't explain to you exactly why you are wrong.
And (clawing his way back on topic ) the Internet can enable everyone to see just who has the better srguments.
Kinesthesiology (sp.?) Do your own research on it. It is a very interesting book.
There's a lot of pro and con about this subject and Wiki actually provided the best summary.
"George J. Goodheart, a chiropractor, originated AK in 1964[2] and began teaching it to other chiropractors.[3] An organization of Goodheart Study Group Leaders began meeting in 1973, selected the name "The International College of Applied Kinesiology" (ICAK) in 1974, adopted bylaws in 1975, elected officers in 1975, and "certified" its charter members, called "diplomates" in 1976.[4] ICAK now considers 1976 to be the date it was founded and 1973 to be the date that its first chairman took office.[5] AK is a practice within the realm of alternative medicine and is different from "kinesiology," which is the scientific study of human movement. AK has been criticized on theoretical and empirical grounds,[6] and characterized as pseudoscience[7] and quackery.[6] In Britain, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recently ruled that kinesiology is unproven and advised against its use in allergy diagnosis [1]
Like other alternative medical 'disciplines' it is theoretical, doubtully substantiated, 'works' the way other self - deluding 'count the hits' methods and needs some definite verification before anyone supposes there is any validity in it, other than the 'placebo/prayer works' effect.
If you think people can't be fooled, google Holland and Barratt's embarrassment at the Vega machine scam - a simple Black Box fraud which they permitted in their stores. No doubt being able to shift a few of their slower - moving nostrums as a reult persuaded them not to be too questioning.
Here is some info on research studies. Getting back to the original question . . . Christ himself vibrated at a very high level of consciousness, but fundamentalist groups vibrate at very low levels.
Getting back to the OP. (sorta) Jesus talked nonsense and rather nasty nonsense. I don't blame the historical Jesus for that as I doubt that a word of the gospels was ever really spoken by him.
Example. David and the shewbread is the worst argument possible for setting aside sabbath observance. Such an argument would disgrace Sarah Palin. The Pharisees, educated in scripture, would have pulled him up right away (if it was a true event, which it isn't, to make the point perfectly clear).
Clearly Jesus vibrated no more than anybody else and Christ existed only in the heads of various people.
Let's leave this ether and crystal stuff to the pyramidiots and atlantis - fanciers and return to reason, shall we? Fundamentalists have smart people as well as dumbclucks. When they talk nonsense it is because their faith is making them illogical and so they misuse learning where it helps their arguments and decry it where it doesn't. It isn't because they're stupid or their vibrations are low - level but because that's what Faith - based thinking does.
Where they deconvert they are as smart as ever I saw. IQ isn't the operative factor, it is the correct use of it.
The ideas about levels of consciousness were my valid contribution to this discussion for anyone who might be interested in thinking about this issue from that perspective, as opposed to IQ measurement.
As I asked, where does this alleged vibration come from, and how do inanimate and therefore unconscious objects have a "particular level of consciousness"? It sounds like utter nonsense to me.
As I asked, where does this alleged vibration come from, and how do inanimate and therefore unconscious objects have a "particular level of consciousness"? It sounds like utter nonsense to me.
I can't possibly distill an entire, complicated subject on which I gave a great book referral, down to a few sentences. I am not an expert on this subject. I have read this book, Power Vs. Force, and found it fascinating.
If you really want the answers to your questions, maybe you should read the book. If you're just baiting me, I am not falling for it.
I personally don't have the time or inclination to attempt to explain such a monumental subject when there are plenty of books, such as the one i mentioned, and others, on the subject.
As I asked, where does this alleged vibration come from, and how do inanimate and therefore unconscious objects have a "particular level of consciousness"? It sounds like utter nonsense to me.
Yup, sounds like just more nonsense to me too...I did about 15 minutes research on it and that's all it took to see through the facade.
It's a good idea to "try and sound smart", especially if one is. You might even look up a few big words (no one knows them all). What should we do, try and sound stupid?
There are plenty of posts on the forums from skeptics who give cogent reasons for their skepticism. There are many good reasons to be skeptical of those who promote man-made religious books as "God's word".
And what if you don't put much stock in "the Book", or what organized religion has to say on the subject, and merely go with what seems most logical to you? I don't blindly follow any religion and haven't attended services in years. Yet my experiences lead me to belief. Logic also leads me to believe, because it does me no harm. Thus, I make a conscious decision to believe without objective proof, which, as there is no objective reality, could never exist in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) the Internet can enable everyone to see just who has the better srguments.
