Discussions

The Insecurities of the Sciences-Spirituality

Posted Aug. 22, 2014 by Silverghost in Open

commented on Oct. 3, 2014
by Silverghost

Quote

59

This is funny, having an interest in psychology, I thought I should have been able to answer a question I asked my wife last night not long after replying back to another science minded person who showed signs of being insecure, the question was, why are science minded people so insecure when conversing with spiritually minded people? It seems to have something to do with our belief in a higher power, a power greater than all the sciences put together, this is highly threatening to them.

Before I go into this any further, we must determine what the signs of such insecurities are. The following is a reply I gave to another person in relation to how we react when we are insecure as a child and how we display the same insecure traits in adulthood.

“This is an interesting way of putting it but yes......insecurities give us biases. We are all quite bias when growing up because we are only aware of our immediate existence, this is like anyone being fixated to one ideological principle and thinking it's the be and end all, any other ideology questioning such an ideology will make these people feel insecure and make them react quite irrationally/illogically/foolishly, how does a child react when it's insecure? The same way!!”

The following was written by a self-proclaimed atheist pointing out the insecurities that some people have about their beliefs, he of course used a conversation he had with a religious person which in itself shows how insecure he was, why wasn’t he objective to start with instead of using an opposing ideological principle to he’s own to prove a point? It’s funny how easy it is to point out other people’s insecurities but not so easy to see our own insecurities.

http://thrivebydesign.org/?p=519

I have had numerous discussions with atheists and science minded people, they are all too willing to point out the insecurities in other people’s ideological principles but their own. They’re not being incorrect altogether in pointing out these insecurities in others but because they are bias, they can’t see their own insecurities, this is how a bias attitude can give one flawed logics but of course they won’t see this either because of their insecurities.

When first starting out in these discussions, they usually start out rationally, but most often than not, these people will display an irrational behaviour after I have proved a point. What kind of irrational behaviour am I talking about here? Name calling, narky remarks, dishonesty, being asked to scientifically prove every point I make but on the other hand they have excluded themselves from doing the same and so on. Once I start to prove my points, especially scientifically, the irrationality gets even worse; my evidence is usually dismissed as nonsense even though such evidence was obtained from Professors in physics and psychologists for example. I’ve even been told psychology isn’t a science even though science and psychology both derived from philosophy!!

Another indication of such insecurity is I’m a science basher even though I’m also into the sciences as well; this is a totally irrational statement brought on by an obvious insecurity of some kind. When these people are insecure, they will harp on the same thing over and over again like you are science bashing. This allows them psychologically to denounce anything you say as being factual or of any sort of truth by making themselves believe you are only a science basher. Do I get the same reaction from people into other kinds of ideologies such as spirituality? Yes but only if they feel insecure, a lot of truly spiritually aware people don’t react in an insecure way because they don’t feel threatened. I also by the way have conversed with a number of science minded people who don’t react insecurely either but see my point as I do of theirs, the discussion ends there.

In the religious Dark ages, the churches in Europe were afraid (insecure) of the sciences and of anyone of any other ideological principle but their own, there reaction of course was to rid themselves physically of such threatening people.

Are the people who are science minded today showing signs of the same insecurities of the religious Dark Age? The reactions I get from other science minded people show me this is the case, they seem to be in fear of a more highly aware consciousness than the sciences they so much believe in. A higher consciousness will, especially if it’s of God like consciousness, make modern day science mundane. This would be catastrophically psychologically disturbing to most science minded people who think science is the be and end all. This is of course no different to telling a highly religious person that it’s been proven a God doesn’t exist, we are talking about pure fear here so we will indeed react irrationally. The Middle East is a good example of this at the moment, any kind of fanaticism is a good indication of an insecurity complex, this includes fanaticism in any ideological principle including the sciences.

It has been said to me, when relating modern day science mentality to the religious Dark Age mentality that science minded people don’t go around killing people not of their ideology. I know by some of the reactions I’ve had that if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual. There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could. Science indeed has become a religion and a religion that is threatened by a possible higher power than theirs!!

So it comes down to being aware of how threatening it is to others that it’s possible that a higher consciousness exists over and above their own ideological principles, being spiritually aware we must realise how threatening we seem to others who judge their ideologies to be the be and end all. I don’t myself seem to have any ideology that can be threatened in this way, it truly wouldn’t worry me if it was proven that a higher consciousness didn’t exist, it would just prove I was incorrect within my assumptions that is all. Certain science minded people on the other hand have a lot more to lose because they have put science above all else, we must show empathy and be considerate of their situation, it’s not easy for them especially psychologically.

  • 59 Comments  
  • Silverghost Oct 03, 2014

    "What HAS science proven?"

    The real questions are, what hasn't science proven and what can't science prove? How many proven facts of science has been disproven? Newton and even Einstein's theories which have been taken as fact are good examples of this.

    These questions of mine are obviously objective unlike the initial question, it's got everything to do with how you ask a question if you are going to get a true answer or not.

    "Now this is a fools debate since that is no evidence that in fact "science minded people," an undefined term, are insecure."

    So I suppose trolling, name calling and attacking people's characters isn't a sign of an insecurity!! I think some people need to get out of their cacoon and actually experience different facets of life before judging them but that's not going to occur is it.

    Is showing an obvious disdain towards a person or another ideological principle than our own, a sign of insecurity? It obviously is, you don't need to be an Einstein to work this out.

    But this is not the opposite position to the posters question, which is,"Why are spiritually minded people so secure when conversing with science minded people?""

    This is highly deceptive which seems to be the usual tactic of such people......We certainly need to clean up this board from such underhanded behaviour.

    So science minded people, unlike everyone else on this planet, don't, when in disdain of something they are judging, analyse such things subjectively? The reactions of certain science minded people on this board certainly say that's not the case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt

    "Contempt is a complex emotion (not among the original six emotions as classified by Paul Ekman, namely: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise) and is a mix of the basic emotions disgust and anger."

    Is fear a sign of insecurity? As soon as you show contempt/disdain you are showing fear, an insecurity.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 27, 2014

    Again......

    "Here is another classic issue of what needs to be weeded out of any new forum on IONS, (so I hope you are reading this).
    The poster writes, " why are science minded people so insecure when conversing with spiritually minded people?" Now this is a fools debate since that is no evidence that in fact "science minded people," an undefined term, are insecure. This is a completely SUBJECTIVE viewpoint, that is, "spiritually minded people" MAY perceptive "science minded people" as being insecure.

    But let's push the issue a bit further; what is the opposite side of this debate? We might ask, "Are science minded people insecure when conversing with spiritually minded people?" Indeed this is a more relevant question. But this is not the opposite position to the posters question, which is, "Why are spiritually minded people so secure when conversing with science minded people?"

    My answer, in a word to this question is, "Ignorance."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 27, 2014

    Re: science was unable to prove it

    What HAS science proven?

  • Silverghost Sep 26, 2014

    "It's not a popularity contest. We are not here discussing potentiality because the majority of people" have it right. "

    So according to you, if most the people on earth experienced something quite obvious and science was unable to prove it at the time, it didn't occur? That's ridiculous logics and reasoning.

    I have seen no conclusive evidence that a higher consciousness doesn't exist, a lot of speculations yes but not absolute conclusive fact. You can blindly believe what you like Dusty, don't expect me too.

    Biology isn't within it's principals subjective but the biologists themselves can be can they not? Look at how subjective you and Noet have continually been when someone else dares uses another ideological principle to you two to evaluate and analyse.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 26, 2014

    re: a lot of people who see there being more of a chance of a higher consciousness existing than not.

    It's not a popularity contest. We are not here discussing potentiality because the majority of people" have it right.

    re: "science is unable to presently prove..."

    Science has proven a great deal that is rejected by the "common folk."
    The resistance to what science has established is what is under question here.
    Certain things are knows, that is, known to science. However, the debate here is not about what science knows or has theorized, it quickly turns to what those that comment believe to be know or unknown. This is the subjective part of the debate.
    And as I have stated before, there is room for subjective speculations, there is an affordance for personal belief, but this cannot be the center of ALL conversations here (a clearly misunderstood point).
    There is a foundation of evidence, the knowns, that continued to be ignored. Those that understand what is known continue to be pointed at as if they are the enemy. This is nothing if not a "kill the messenger" mentality.
    Evidence of this is plain: post a discussion regarding the scientific research of IONS, or Dean Radin, and NO ONE comments. No one cares about research they are unwilling to learn about, (closed minded, resistant to the science)

    Higher consciousness is a concept, nothing more. Biology, however, is not subjective.

  • Silverghost Sep 26, 2014

    "What do you make of these people? People who dream of God and want to fit reality to a dream, even if doing so means splitting reality in two, and murdering the facts, and renouncing reason?"

    I am no doubt stupid for answering this.

    Replacing common sense logics with make believe God's/Goddesses is lame to me however is a belief in a higher consciousness lame especially when it doesn't replace common sense logics? Not to me and a lot of people who see there being more of a chance of a higher consciousness existing than not. Just because science is unable to presently prove, without a doubt, that a higher consciousness couldn't exist, doesn't say without a doubt it doesn't.

    I use psychology and philosophy within my reasoning however I don't try to knock people who only use spiritualistic reasoning unless of course they are radical within their principles.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 26, 2014

    "What do you make of these people? People who dream of God and want to fit reality to a dream, even if doing so means splitting reality in two, and murdering the facts, and renouncing reason?"

  • Silverghost Sep 26, 2014

    Dusty

    You are still trying to troll me off the discussion board like you have with so many others I see, that's intelligent!!

    So you are allowed to troll, call names and bully people off the board who don't follow the exact same science principles as you but I'm not allowed to state the obvious? It would seem so.......So there is no evidence of science minded people being insecure when conversing with spiritually aware people or of any people who dare to believe in different principles than science principles? I think calling people names and attacking their character is a very good indication of this insecurity wouldn't you say Dusty? There are of course spiritually aware people who do the same, once anyone with a set ideological principle feels their principles are being questioned, they lash out.

    But of course science minded people aren't like everybody else, they are wholly objective within their principles that's why they lash out so often!!

    Has anyone else noticed the difference between how people are drilled on this board, certain science minded people don't drill other science minded people in the same aggressive way they drill other people of different principles, if this isn't subjective to the extreme I don't know what is. It's quite obvious what is happening here, you don't have to be an Einstein to work that out.

    IONS needs to weed out the trollers, name callers, people who attack people's character and who dictate what and what shouldn't be posted on an open discussion board.

    Keep trolling Dusty, very lever indeed I must say.....

    By the way Dusty, you have still got to show us scientific proof of me being a spammer? If you want to make such accusations at least for once give us proof of such accusations. If this kind of behaviour isn't subjective I don't know what is!!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 25, 2014

    edit: that is, "spiritually minded people" MAY perceive "science minded people" as being insecure.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 24, 2014

    Here is another classic issue of what needs to be weeded out of any new forum on IONS, (so I hope you are reading this).
    The poster writes, " why are science minded people so insecure when conversing with spiritually minded people?" Now this is a fools debate since that is no evidence that in fact "science minded people," an undefined term, are insecure. This is a completely SUBJECTIVE viewpoint, that is, "spiritually minded people" MAY perceptive "science minded people" as being insecure.

    But let's push the issue a bit further; what is the opposite side of this debate? We might ask, "Are science minded people insecure when conversing with spiritually minded people?" Indeed this is a more relevant question. But this is not the opposite position to the posters question, which is, "Why are spiritually minded people so secure when conversing with science minded people?"

    My answer, in a word to this question is, "Ignorance."

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    Is this the best you can do, show me where the blog address is. It’s blog by the way not blogs…..it would be nice if you got something right."

    http://mgnaismith.blogspot.com.au/

    https://plus.google.com/108000215171210294896#108000215171210294896/posts"

    Quite incorrect again, it's showing the Google community I participate in, it's not an actual blog and I have not paste and copied anything from this community, give us sound proof I have if you are going to make such accusations. You love misleading people.

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "Is this the best you can do, show me where the blog address is. It’s blog by the way not blogs…..it would be nice if you got something right."

    http://mgnaismith.blogspot.com.au/

    https://plus.google.com/108000215171210294896#108000215171210294896/posts

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    “I would like to point out that Silverghost, aka MrMathew, who's conduct has previously gotten him banned from this discussion board, has been cutting and pasting directly from his two blogs since he returned as "Silverghost". He has effectively been using the IONS discussion board to piggyback off of, so as to increase traffic to his own blogs.’

    Is this the best you can do, show me where the blog address is. It’s blog by the way not blogs…..it would be nice if you got something right.

    I read the rest of your statement, boy are you insecure with me, you have so much proven my point within my thread it’s not funny.

    I’ve tried to avoid you by not posting anything on your threads but have you done the same? No, you obviously just wanted to cause trouble so you badger and call me names on my own threads. You have given no consideration to others on this site what so ever have you?

    "I know by some of the reactions I’ve had that if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual. There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could."

    You really have a huge problem with this statement of mine, you have even tried to state I’ve stated certain words when I haven’t, I wouldn’t call that very honest.

    “If I have called you names it's because your behaviour was consistent with those names.”

    Anyone who thinks it’s OK to call people names doesn’t belong on a site like IONS that is for sure. It is obvious you don’t give a hoot about IONS and it’s members by badgering me. You know what trouble it causes when you and I converse but you haven’t tried to avoid me and in actual fact badgered me instead like you are on this thread.

    So you obviously think name calling is OK…WOW.

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    Science creates weapons to kill indiscriminately, either it be spiritually award people or not, that is fact, so these same people would never think of killing people they deem as parasites, cowards, liars and so forth?

    Of course they would, an obvious number of science minded people have very little respect for spiritually aware people, so they would create a weapon to kill women and children but they wouldn’t think of killing people they obviously deem as parasites!! This makes utterly no logical sense what so ever.

    Weapons need to be created to protect ourselves but I couldn’t do this myself, weapons created by science, like nerve and mustard gas, do kill indiscriminately; I myself couldn’t create such weapons.

    So these same people wouldn’t ever think of wanting to kill people they deem as parasites!! You would have to be either stupid and/or ignorant to believe certain science minded people wouldn’t at least think about killing off what they have deemed as parasites when they can create weapons that do also kill women and children indiscriminately.

    So scientists who create such weapons have a totally different mentality (mind set) to churchmen in the Dark Ages!! Obviously not.

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "I wish to inform everyone that I have made an official complaint against NeotPoet, this kind of immature behaviour has gone way too far."

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    Dear IONS,

    I would like to point out that Silverghost, aka MrMathew, who's conduct has previously gotten him banned from this discussion board, has been cutting and pasting directly from his two blogs since he returned as "Silverghost". He has effectively been using the IONS discussion board to piggyback off of, so as to increase traffic to his own blogs.

    Since returning he has swamped the IONS discussion boards with baseless assertions, divisive and derogatory accusations, finger-pointing, and anti-science screeds (on a science website!). He has no respect for his fellow posters or the mission of IONS, and his haughty pontifications about "spirituality" and "ego" are completely at odds with his conduct on this board. On top of all this, he has now accused "science-minded" people of wanting to kill "spiritual" people, an allegation which is as grotesque as it is unsubstantiated. Here is what he said in the opening post to this thread:

    "I know by some of the reactions I’ve had that if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual. There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could."

    This is hate-speech. Surely someone with such a venomous attitude towards science and "science-minded" people has no business posting on a science website.

    Yours sincerely,

    NoetPoet

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "The reason I haven’t ignored NoetPoet is to prove my point in relation to my thread, people with insecurities will become more irrational in a discussion which he has obviously done. "

    Never a more staggering example of projection have I encountered than this!

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "You still haven’t pointed out where I said that scientists have secret desires to kill. "

    Yes I have, twice already. You're just too pigheaded to admit it.

    "Show exactly where I said you said all…….I’m still waiting and I will be waiting for ever wouldn’t I because I didn’t state you said all did I? You do know what honesty means don’ you because it would seem not?"

    When you said:

    "I also said some and certain science minded people but you have deliberately excluded this to obviously give a false impression"

    "So you are saying you haven’t been irrational?"

    Cite specific examples. If I have called you names it's because your behaviour was consistent with those names.

    "So I suppose this statement by you isn’t representative of irrational behaviour, accuse people of lying without proof?"

    You are so hell-bent on not being seen to be wrong that you are lying and obfuscating repeatedly about saying that "science minded" people have a desire to kill "spiritual" people.

    :"I will give you an example of your presumptions, Bankyet isn’t a place, it’s a name of a person"

    Which evidently means nothing to anyone except yourself. Like I said, I'm not interested in your pathetic attempts at mindgames. You're nowhere near smart enough to play them with me, so don't even bother.

    "You have some serious problems my man…..truly."

    Yeah, my problem is obnoxious self-congratulatory know-nothings like you.

    "I have never met anyone this immature in character before on a science minded site"

    Right back at ya.

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "I never claimed to be "Mr. Ultimate Truth". You coined that and added a trademark Emblem :-P - I just claimed to see it and have a unnatural capacity for discerning truth."

    That's what I meant by it.

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    I wouldn't say intelligent, knowledgeable yes to a degree but not intelligent, an intelligent person to me wouldn't stoop to such behaviour no matter what.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 25, 2014

    It's unfortunate, he seems like an intelligent person. Too bad he feels superior though.. It's the down fall of most intelligent people. They often lack wisdom.

    @NoetPoet - I never claimed to be "Mr. Ultimate Truth". You coined that and added a trademark Emblem :-P - I just claimed to see it and have a unnatural capacity for discerning truth. I can almost always see through people's lies, especially face to face, which can be painful at times!

    Meant to start a thread but alas I have had a lot going on. Soon, perhaps.

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    "I've done no such thing. You however have shown yourself to be an unrepentent bald-faced liar."

    I wish to inform everyone that I have made an official complaint against NeotPoet, this kind of immature behaviour has gone way too far.

    We are discussing human nature and it's expected emotions will get out of hand, this is part and parcel whenever human nature is being discussed but this I'm afraid has gone too far. This isn't the first time NeotPoet has called people liars especially without sound proof, something needs to be done about this because he's going to keep doing this.

    Calling people names is human nature but to call someone an unrepentent bald-faced liar doesn't seem appropriate for a site like this one, these people who indulge in such profanity should find a site that is quite excepting of this kind of immature behaviour, IONS to me isn't one of these sites.

    Is calling someone a unrepentent bald-faced liar a sign of irrational behaviour? I would think it was, this kind of behaviour has certainly proved a lot of the points I have made in this thread.

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    G’day Suffering Servant

    The reason I haven’t ignored NoetPoet is to prove my point in relation to my thread, people with insecurities will become more irrational in a discussion which he has obviously done. This of course needed my participation, what better way to give proof of what I’ve stated in the thread!!

    I don’t know how old he is but he’s very immature in character, he’s not worth any more of my time.

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    @NoetPoet

    You still haven’t pointed out where I said that scientists have secret desires to kill.

    “And nor did I say that you said that all "science-minded" people were like that, so stop putting words in my mouth.”

    Show exactly where I said you said all…….I’m still waiting and I will be waiting for ever wouldn’t I because I didn’t state you said all did I? You do know what honesty means don’ you because it would seem not?

    “Like when?’

    So you are saying you haven’t been irrational? WOW, you don’t know much do you? For a supposed logical person to openly deceive is an irrational behaviour, calling people names is an irrational behaviour and so on……

    “I've done no such thing. You however have shown yourself to be an unrepentent bald-faced liar.”

    So I suppose this statement by you isn’t representative of irrational behaviour, accuse people of lying without proof? You have indeed proven my point but obviously unbeknownst to you.

    I will give you an example of your presumptions, Bankyet isn’t a place, it’s a name of a person, you presume way too much, no wonder you are making the mistakes you are.

    You have some serious problems my man…..truly. I have never met anyone this immature in character before on a science minded site……..

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "I don't try to make you feel inferior to me, or try to bring you down."

    Is that so Mr Ultimate Truth?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 25, 2014

    I was hardly going on the attack. Simple 1 word 'attacks' are hardly an attack..

    I don't try to make you feel inferior to me, or try to bring you down.

    But fine, I'll let him fight his own battles. He seems to be adamant about continuing instead of ignoring you, so I won't bother.

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    PS

    SufferingServant,

    Silverghost is a big boy, he doesn't need you to fight his battles.

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    @SS

    "I do tend to turn the other cheek when you're destructive efforts are turned towards me.It's when you point them at someone else that I 'fought fire with fire."

    Another example of your hypocritical rationalisation. So it's okay to turn the other cheek when you're under fire, but when it's someone else you go on the attack. How the hell does that work, and do you not see how easy to use that "logic" to rationalise an aggressive response to an attack based on some flimsy pretext that it was somehow an attack on someone else? At any rate, I wouldn't say that calling me "Satan" qualifies as turning the other cheek.

    "If you truly wanted to 'change his mind' you're taking the wrong approach. You're only wasting your time!"

    Oh I am well aware that it's a waste of time to try and change his mind SS. Anyone who's that incredibly pigheaded, self-satisfied and wilfully STUPID is going to be utterly impervious to reason and rationality. Believe me, my goal is not to change his mind and it never will be; my goal is to counter the asinine rubbish he unloads all over these discussion boards. If he doesn't like this then he can confine his posting activities to his own blog, the contents of which he is cutting and pasting onto these discussion boards.

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "Could you please point out NoetPeot where it says, in my statement here, that scientists have secrete desires to kill? In the heat of the moment, I have had it said to me that all spiritual people deserve to die, this kind of mentality is more common than most people think."

    Sure, here it is: "if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual. There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could."

    The fact that you didn't explicitly say "secret" isn't even beside the point, it actually makes your accusation even more disgusting and ludicrous.

    "I also said some and certain science minded people but you have deliberately excluded this to obviously give a false impression, what do you call this kind of action NoetPeot? I certainly wouldn’t call it honesty!!"

    Read your own words again Mathew. The fact that you qualified it with "certain" is irrelevant. And nor did I say that you said that all "science-minded" people were like that, so stop putting words in my mouth.

    "Because of your prejudices, it would seem you read into things you want to hear not what is actually written, this is a good example of how a destructive mentality flaws logics. Once we become irrational, common sense logics goes out the window as you yourself have displayed many times."

    Like when?

    "Is my thread now based on baseless assertions? You yourself have proven it’s not. "

    I've done no such thing. You however have shown yourself to be an unrepentent bald-faced liar.

    .

  • NoetPoet Aug 25, 2014

    "This is going to give you enough rope to hang me for good to the ignorant; you and I were best friends in a past life in Yugoslavia. I’ve hung you inadvertently, it’s about time I released you from this."

    Your unoriginal hallucinations do not equal past life memories.

    "Does the word Bankyet mean anything to you? Probably not……"

    No it doesn't. A google search suggests that it doesn't mean anything to anyone else either. Spare me your lousy attempts at ooga-booga BS mindgames.

    "I’m an awful coward aren’t I"

    No argument there.

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    @ NoetPoet

    "I know by some of the reactions I’ve had that if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual. There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could."

    Could you please point out NoetPeot where it says, in my statement here, that scientists have secrete desires to kill? In the heat of the moment, I have had it said to me that all spiritual people deserve to die, this kind of mentality is more common than most people think.

    I also said some and certain science minded people but you have deliberately excluded this to obviously give a false impression, what do you call this kind of action NoetPeot? I certainly wouldn’t call it honesty!!

    Because of your prejudices, it would seem you read into things you want to hear not what is actually written, this is a good example of how a destructive mentality flaws logics. Once we become irrational, common sense logics goes out the window as you yourself have displayed many times.

    Is my thread now based on baseless assertions? You yourself have proven it’s not.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 25, 2014

    "I'd expect that kind of nonsensical inanity from a theologian. What happened to "turning the other cheek"? Or do you always fight fire with fire?"

    I do tend to turn the other cheek when you're destructive efforts are turned towards me.

    It's when you point them at someone else that I 'fought fire with fire'.

    I hope you can see you're only wasting your time by being destructive - if you truly wanted to 'change his mind' you're taking the wrong approach.

    You're only wasting your time!

  • Silverghost Aug 25, 2014

    This is going to give you enough rope to hang me for good to the ignorant; you and I were best friends in a past life in Yugoslavia. I’ve hung you inadvertently, it’s about time I released you from this.

    Does the word Bankyet mean anything to you? Probably not……

    There we go, so you have all the bullets you want to hang me in relation to the ignorant.

    Sorry my friend, it was obvious our paths were going to meet again; you have now all the power over me you want in relation to the ignorant. I’m an awful coward aren’t I?

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    Learn how to write more clearly and you won't expose yourself to misinterpretation! Besides, with all the deranged rubbish you dump on these boards, is it any wonder I interpreted your poorly constructed sentence that way?

    "OK just prove that I wrote that "science minded" people harbour a secret desire to kill ", you want to make accusation back them up, do it at least once."

    In the opening post of this thread you wrote:

    "I know by some of the reactions I’ve had that if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual. There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could."

    Go on, search your opening post and see for yourself!

    .

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    I want everyone to look back in these discussions, are they not getting more irrational, foolish, unintelligent in relation to certain people’s responses?

    We are now stooping to obvious deliberate deception, how irrational is this from when we started these discussions?

    "Silverghost offers up a great big steaming pile of....baseless assertions. Just for something new and different..."

    I think this person who wrote this, needs to eat his own words!! You want proof of my claims, I give you NoetPeot. Sorry mate but you are doing it to yourself once again.

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    You are spitting up sentences to deliberately deceive, you did this last time I was on IONS if I remember right. If you can’t decipher a simple sentence, maybe you shouldn’t read them in the first place. You read the sentence in the way you wanted to read them, destructively as usual. You are proving my point about destructive mentality.

    “Oh and by the way, I wouldn't be crowing about the fact that you routinely pull your "concepts" out of your arse. “

    How intelligent is this, I bet this took you a while to write? Thanks again for proving numerous points within my thread.

    "Your" ideas nowhere as original as you'd like to think - if I had a dollar for everytime I'd ever seen or heard someone whinge about "materialism" and the "ego", I'd be a very wealthy man!”

    You are the only person who has said this about my writings but of course everybody else are idiots aren’t they especially compared to you?

    “Certainly not as low as your disgusting ludicrous accusation that "science minded" people harbour a secret desire to kill "spiritual" people!’

    Another over exemplification of what I actually wrote, you could have dramatized this a little more to deceive more people. Show me where I actually wrote secrete desire to kill? I didn’t think you could stoop any lower but you have.

    Let’s look at this thread, to prove that I am not original within my writing and concepts, give us sound evidence that at least one of the concepts within this thread aren’t original……..

    OK just prove that I wrote that "science minded" people harbour a secret desire to kill ", you want to make accusation back them up, do it at least once.

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    *nowhere NEAR AS original*

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    "Again you are being deceiving by spitting up a sentence to make it sound completely different. It is obvious I was referring to you plagiarising other people’s concepts which you do quite often."

    No, you just don't know how to write properly. I was honestly wondering what the hell you were talking about, since I've never plagiarised an idea from you (and never would!). On the whole I actually do a very good job of making sense of your garbled incoherent utterings.

    Oh and by the way, I wouldn't be crowing about the fact that you routinely pull your "concepts" out of your arse. "Your" ideas nowhere as original as you'd like to think - if I had a dollar for everytime I'd ever seen or heard someone whinge about "materialism" and the "ego", I'd be a very wealthy man!

    "Honestly, how low are you going to stoop now?"

    Certainly not as low as your disgusting ludicrous accusation that "science minded" people harbour a secret desire to kill "spiritual" people!

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    The insecurities of the sciences, I don't need to look for evidence it's right here within these replies, there is no better proof than actual factual proof. Science is speculative but obvious actions speak for themselves.

    “Oh sorry, I forgot, providing evidence for your claims is beneath you isn't it.”

    This is about as intelligent as it gets obviously, I suppose it’s sort of one up from calling people names but it is still quite condescending; you don’t need much intelligence to be condescending!! I also love the deception again, split up a sentence to sound differently to how it was originally written, deceptive but not smart.

    How low are you going to stoop NeotPoet, how low will you stoop? It would seem there is no depth in how low you will stoop. Why don’t I need to stoop this low, this deceptive? You call me a coward, amongst other things, but I’m not stooping to deception and splitting up sentences to sound different.

    ‘Yet another stupid, unfair, ludicrous accusation. When have I ever plagarised your lousy excuses for concepts? GIVE EXAMPLES’

    Again you are being deceiving by spitting up a sentence to make it sound completely different. It is obvious I was referring to you plagiarising other people’s concepts which you do quite often.

    Honestly, how low are you going to stoop now? How about if you call my sister a sl_t, that’s about the size of your intelligence is it not?

    Boy are you proving my point about the insecurities in the sciences, I give you proof, I give you NoetPeot……this isn’t just science speculations, this is actual fact.

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    "Forget it mate, there is no way you are going to get me down to your level"

    Oh sorry, I forgot, providing evidence for your claims is beneath you isn't it.

    "Numerous times do I bring forth new concepts, you only plagiarise them."

    Yet another stupid, unfair, ludicrous accusation. When have I ever plagarised your lousy excuses for concepts? GIVE EXAMPLES

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    "They were if anything destructive to your destruction"

    I'd expect that kind of nonsensical inanity from a theologian. What happened to "turning the other cheek"? Or do you always fight fire with fire?

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    “Are you seriously comparing yourself to EINSTEIN? Lololololol.....funniest thing I've read all day Mathew. Thanks for the laughs!”

    You are so so predictable aren’t you? The funny thing is you’re not actually laughing because you know I think for myself like Einstein thought for himself but you obviously can’t, no you’re not laughing……if you are, you are a bigger fool that I thought you were.

    “Oh and by the way I provided evidence to support my claims about Emoto, it was the first thing I did when I entered that conversation. The only "evidence" you provided in return was the baseless assertions of others, an inauthentic Einstein quote, and a kiddies science page which didn't in fact support your claim.”

    Baseless assertions, is this like calling someone a coward a number of times without scientific evidence to support such allegations and assertions is it not? You know what evidence I was talking about, one only stoops to deception when one is fearful.

    Forget it mate, there is no way you are going to get me down to your level, you can call me all the names you like, abuse me all you want and deceive to cover up your short falls but you will never get me to stoop as low as you. You can keep trying though but it will only make you look even more foolish if that is possible of course!!

    It’s not just because I’m spiritually aware you are obviously afraid of but the fact I think for myself and you can’t, numerous times do I bring forth new concepts, you only plagiarise them.

    I don’t mean to be offensive but it’s utterly stupid putting people down who think for themselves and bring forth new concepts. We certainly don’t need any more people who have the mentality of a Newtonian who just slanders away without scientifically proving such slander but that's you.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 24, 2014

    None of my comments were destructive out of the blue - They were if anything destructive to your destruction

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    Rationalize it all you want, it won't make you any less of a hypocrite.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 24, 2014

    With Satan I was implying your self serving, as just about all of us are.

    With the coward, I was saying it's cowardly to attack another who you feel is inferior (same thing you're doing here on this thread)

    Moron same as above.

    Sick I was referring to the joy you feel from attacking another (assumed joy).

    Cult leader? Lol..... Cult of logic?

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    @SS
    "@NoetPoet - sir, there is no need to be destructive with your criticism"

    Says the guy who calls me "sick", "Satan", "coward" and "moron". But I guess blatant hypocrisy is to be expected from cult leader wannabes...

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    Are you seriously comparing yourself to EINSTEIN? Lololololol.....funniest thing I've read all day Mathew. Thanks for the laughs!

    Oh and by the way I provided evidence to support my claims about Emoto, it was the first thing I did when I entered that conversation. The only "evidence" you provided in return was the baseless assertions of others, an inauthentic Einstein quote, and a kiddies science page which didn't in fact support your claim.

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    Sorry for misinterpreting what you wrote SS, I can't say it won't happen again though....-)

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    @NoetPoet

    I know how to think for myself, this is quite obvious in the concepts I come up with, they are different to most other concepts as this has been said to me on a number of occasions.

    My own concepts/deductions might or might not be right but at least I am thinking for myself obviously unlike yourself.

    Newtonian’s; they refuted Einstein’s findings anyway they could for the main reason he thought for himself and came up with a new concept, this new concept questioned Newton’s theory so the Newtonian’s went on the attack very much like you are doing right now.

    Anyone who is unable to think for themselves will see others that do as a threat just as you are doing.

    How many original non- plagiarised concepts have your come up with, now take a look at my blog and you will see how many new concepts I have come up with that have questioned both science and spiritual accepted concepts. Yes they might not be correct but it’s at least a new concept, I’m certainly not a sheep that is for sure.

    As Einstein did, I scare the hell out of people like yourself who show the same characteristics as Newtonian’s , you are unable to think for yourself so you irrationally and immaturely bag anyone who can thinks for themselves, (bs) how mature and intelligent is this kind of statement, truly and without scientific evidence once again?

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    @NoetPoet

    “The scientific evidence is your repeated evasion of my questions as recorded in a number of discussions on this board, the latest example of which was your refusal to provide evidence for Emoto's claims as requested.”

    I know calling me a coward, on number of times, came way before the Omoto discussion without scientific evidence and I have given evidence or tried to give evidence to support my claims but have you? No……so this makes this irrational statement quite irrelevant does it not?

    “See your opening post on this thread for your scientific evidence. Not a single word of it was anything other than assertions of your self-righteous uninformed opinion.”

    Would it matter what evidence from other sources I gave? No once again, I’ve given evidence to support my claims before from Prof of physics and psychiatrists for example; this evidence was refuted by you without scientific evidence of your own!!

    You’re not really serious are you? I hope you are just stringing me a long………. You really fear me that much?

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 24, 2014

    @SilverGhost - no that isn't what I meant! I'll start a new topic at some point today so that I may start back at the beginning of what I was saying in another topic.

    @NoetPoet - sir, there is no need to be destructive with your criticism. At this point it just seems you dislike Silver Ghost and are resorting to personal attacks. Can you please either provide constructive criticism or not comment? I am in no way attacking you so I hope that you aren't perceiving it as such. I'm just saying that you're wasting your time, and his, if you're only going to be destructive. Please let's not resort to destructive attitudes.

  • NoetPoet Aug 24, 2014

    "Is a baseless assertion like calling someone a coward without scientifically proving so?"

    The scientific evidence is your repeated evasion of my questions as recorded in a number of discussions on this board, the latest example of which was your refusal to provide evidence for Emoto's claims as requested.

    "I also like how you backed this statement up with scientific evidence once again!!"

    See your opening post on this thread for your scientific evidence. Not a single word of it was anything other than assertions of your self-righteous uninformed opinion.

  • Silverghost Aug 24, 2014

    @ NeotPeot

    You wouldn't like to answer one of my questions for a change.

    Is a baseless assertion like calling someone a coward without scientifically proving so?

    "More steaming bs"

    Highly intelligent I must say, to be expected. I also like how you backed this statement up with scientific evidence once again!!

  • NoetPoet Aug 23, 2014

    More steaming bs

  • Silverghost Aug 23, 2014

    G'day Suffering Servant

    "I would be willing to bet he's one of the many psychology students that have been taught, and believe, that the subconscious is 'unconscious'. "

    If you mean subconscious as being another conscious state, yes most definitely. The reason I think we call it unconscious is it's of a consciousness that is quite misunderstood by most people; an unconscious state is just as real as our conscious state.

    Does this statement infer that dreams are real? In a symbolic sense they are just as real as in our conscious state.

    “He also probably doesn't understand that you're arguing against his misconceptions that his subconscious belief system has concluded as 'true' but in fact is a 'half-truth'. “
    The subconscious is just as true as the conscious, there are no half-truths in the subconscious if you know how to decipher it properly however I’m certainly not myself proficient in this area.

    “He seems to believe 'he' is equal to 'his belief system' when in fact they are separate.”

    Nothing that is of consciousness is truly separate however in this there are half-truths, nothing of consciousness is separate but this depends on our conscious state of awareness, we can be half aware that can give us half-truths.

  • Silverghost Aug 23, 2014

    @ NeotPeot

    Is a baseless assertion like calling someone a coward without scientifically proving so? hmmmm

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 23, 2014

    I would be willing to bet he's one of the many psychology students that have been taught, and believe, that the subconscious is 'unconscious'.

    He also probably doesn't understand that you're arguing against his misconceptions that his subconscious belief system has concluded as 'true' but in fact is a 'half-truth'. He seems to believe 'he' is equal to 'his belief system' when in fact they are separate.

    @noet if you're going to act childish how about these childish words as a response:

    "I'm rubber your glue.. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.. Na Na Na Na naaa"

  • NoetPoet Aug 22, 2014

    Silverghost offers up a great big steaming pile of....baseless assertions. Just for something new and different...

  • Silverghost Aug 22, 2014

    Yes it would be funny as it would if God was proven to not exist.....Could you imagine the reaction either way, God help us which of course won't occur.

    I'm conversing with a bloke on another site who is all about science, he's replies are totally laughable even though he has studied in psychology, he also uses a lot of upper case letters.

    If someone is using a lot of upper case letters this denotes that they are shouting, why do people shout? Fear and /or dominance. Even though this bloke has studied in psychology, he has no idea in what he is doing, he's insecurities about spirituality is abounding.

    If they really believe spirituality is a lot of nonsense, why do these people often react so aggressively and defensively towards spiritually aware people? I would predict that the subconscious actually believes their is a chance that a higher consciousness just might exist so they react in an aggressively abusive way.

    It's been interesting in the last couple of years conversing with such people. The hypocrisy from both science and spiritual minded people has been amazing. No matter what ideological principle we follow, we still express the same traits to one degree or another. I have found that open minded science and spiritual minded people don't react as insecurely as others who believe their ideology is the be and end all.

  • Anonymous Icon

    SufferingServant Aug 22, 2014

    :-)

    Now imagine how things would transpire if God could be 'scientifically' (logically) explained! That would certainly throw a wrench in the gears, eh?

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS