Atheism & Intelligence

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by garbonzo, May 21, 2013.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    There are two sides of the brain. The left brain rational and the side where written/spoke language is processed. Since this is the basis for eduction, one would expect the left brainers would be better trained by the left brained education system. Atheism could claim more intelligence in the left brain.

    Religion is more right brained which processes data differently. The right brain is more 3-D or spatial, while the left brain is 2-D. Written/spoken language is not processed by the right brain, so this side is not well trained by social education beyond religion, so right brain proficiency is not as clear cut. But since religion makes more use of the right brain, the most intelligent 3-D thinkers tend to be more religious.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That is false.
    That is ridiculous. You can, for example, understand what is spoken into either ear, or read by either eye.

    The takehome here is that the source of your continual posting of pseudoscientific garbage (left brain/right brain, entropy, all of it) is taking advantage of your trust. Go to that source (and it's obvious that it's just one or two places), take a good look at it, say to yourself "these guys have suckered me for the last time", and never go back. The world is full of sources for information that operate in good faith.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ OP and all,

    First; this thread is merely another way to argue creationism and as such should be on a religion thread.

    I cannot fathom how increased exposure to sciences could be expected to bring about a more religious view? Is this not simple common sense and not even worthy of debate?

    I myself subscribe to PSI beliefs and I have experience telepathy and precognition both firsthand and as an observer. This does not constitute proof that PSI effect are real and neither is the facts that more people believe in PSI than do not. These are un proveable personal experiences witnessed only by friends, family, and colleagues. For these reasons; I must look outside accepted science for theories that deal in telepathy and I cannot find any of these theories that do not have room for a god conscience.

    If telepathy is possible then we are all involved in some kind of mind melded haze of shared thoughts and ideas and this consciousness does allow room for mind only and god consciousness.

    I would argue that there is a god but that goes against what I was taught in school. I was not brought up in a religious family and religion is a belief I have evolved into with various life experiences.

    I would argue that it is stupid to think education will make someone religious unless we are teaching them reasons to be religious.

    I would also argue that I think any who are not religious are not as intelligent as those who are, as I base my idea on intelligence on someones ability to understand their surroundings, and those who are nonreligious lack this basic precept.

    Asking people who are graduates is only one viewpoint and is a biased study. Perhaps someone religious and intelligent enough to understand god is real may view the non religious as dumber? I do.

    This is a religion topic. This is a biased view. I think it is clever how we hide these arguments in yet another way, but it is overall a silly no win debate.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Then you need to explain how such a large percentage of people who have played pivotal roles in the expansion of our understanding of the nature of our surroundings have been able to do so without possessing what you say is a basic prerequisite precept.
  8. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Rav,
    I do think that science is great, but there should be a balance that is not recognized by those too small minded to see the realities of PSI and god. The topic does a good example of explaining how science only training can advance science only thinking, but it does not make them intelligent as I see it.
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    That's because your concept of "intelligent" includes believing in "PSI and god." In other words, if they're not shoveling spoonfuls of bullshit down their pseudoscientific gullets, they're not smart.
  10. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Balerion,

    Correct. I might have phrased it differently. I feel sad for them. You obviously understood my viewpoint quite well so I will leave it at that then.

  11. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    There is an intelligent and perfectly logical way to say this:

    I prefer to believe in god, because it soothes my mind.
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The left brain processes spoken and written language. Because the left brain is differential, the practical result are many different sounds/noises/letters for the same phenomena; hundreds of different languages (specialization).

    The right brain also processes language but does so with a spatial language. Body language, for example, is more 3-D since it is the same for all humans regardless of culture; universal or 3-D. It apply to all unlike left brain language like English or French.

    If you look at the image below, it shows the input from the eyes, which split and criss-cross within the brain. Both eyes, for example, can send signals to both/either side of the brain for further processing. If we hear someone speak we hear the words of that language while also processing the universals like inflection and body language.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    another perfectly logical thing to say is:
    god, religion, and the supernatural, aren't actually related to one another.
  14. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    First, you were not really relating to that particular topic, second how is god and religion are not related? Nevermind the answer...

    My point was (to spell it out) that an intelligent person can decide to be a believer not for scientific reasons but for psychological reasons. To use an analogy, let's say your wife is the whore of your village, but you have a happy marriage so you decide to believe that she is the most faithful person on earth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Also, one can even be a believer for sociological reasons.(and lots of them do) Let's say I live in a heavily god friendly area, and I love my neighbours and I found it easier to socialize and blend in if I don't advertise my luck of beliefs....

    Hey, it is pretty much the same with politics in the US...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Language is processed in Broca's Area, which is indeed in the left hemisphere... but only in right-handed people. There is a nearly identical configuration of cells in the right hemisphere, where language is processed in left-handed people.

    Furthermore, despite this discovery, the actual processing of language is still not well understood. In people with tumors that slowly degrade Broca's Area, its functionality migrates to nearby regions and their language skills seem to undergo virtually no impairment.
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    We launched the Comparative Religion board in order to host discussions about religion that adhere to the scientific method: evidence, logic, peer review, Occam's Razor, the Rule of Laplace, etc. The Religion board, on the other hand, is the one place on SciForums where the rules are loosened and members are allowed to post religious arguments. (Well sorry, the various boards in the Crackpottery section also waive certain rules.)

    It's inevitable that in discussions of religion, religionists are going to post religious arguments and expect them to be accepted as logical, because they can't tell the difference!

    So we have to cut them a little slack.

    Supernaturalism is supernaturalism, period. Perhaps the various cadres of supernaturalists see meaningful differences between belief in gods and angels, and belief in communicating with the dead, and belief in spoon-bending, and belief in telepathy, and belief in reincarnation, and belief in homeopathy, and belief in past-life regression, and belief that the stars control our lives (the ones outside our solar system, not the ones in Hollywood who actually do sometimes control our lives

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )--but they're already a little crazy, so anything they believe has to be run through Occam's Razor and the Rule of Laplace before giving it a second thought.

    The fundamental purpose of education is to teach people to think. Surely the same Bell Curve is in operation here as in every other human endeavor. Some of these people we've educated at great expense are going to think of some pretty wacky things while the rest of us are solving the energy crisis or finding a way to bring peace to the Middle East. (Yes, I know that's a bad example since it will surely require the abolition of religion.)

    That's a rather biased thing to say. It assumes without proof, and even without argument, that the supernatural fairtytales of the religionists are true. The natural universe IS "our surroundings."

    There is no invisible, illogical supernatural universe from which fantastic creatures and other incredible forces emerge at random intervals for the purpose of whimsically and often petulantly perturbing the behavior of the natural universe. The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from observation of its present and past behavior: that is the fundamental premise upon which all science is based. If it weren't true then science would be useless. It's been tested exhaustively and often with great hostility for half a millennium and no evidence has been found to challenge it. Just a tortilla with a scorch mark that's said to be the likeness of a person mentioned in the Bible--of whom no portraits exist against which to validate it!

    Well since you identify yourself as one of those people (unless my genetic inability to understand sarcasm is getting me in trouble again), please enlighten us and explain how your extraordinary intelligence gave you the tools to prove the existence of God. Even though this is the most extraordinary of all extraordinary assertions, we will waive the Rule of Laplace just this once, and ask you to merely provide some ordinary evidence to support this assertion.

    If, on the other hand, your belief is based entirely on so-called evidence that only you can see, and voices that only you can hear, and experiences that only you can understand, so you'll sadly explain that we can't test your evidence so we'll just have to take your word for it, we'll dismiss you as just one more nutcase trying to sneak into the academy. Regardless of your MENSA membership card.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Fraggle Rocker,

    I see no significant rebuttal in any of your points and I stand behind what I have written.

    As for,

    During my teenage years I lost contact with a friend for over 6 months. She vanished without a trace and none of us heard from her. Following the advice of a book by Harold Sherman (How to make ESP work for you), I attempted to send this thought to her,
    " (her full name here), (My full name here) misses you very much get in touch."
    within 5 days I recieved a letter from Rochester New York (I live(d) in Canada) that was somewhat cryptic and mysterious as to who the sender was. It said things like "we once attended a Toga party together". At the bottom of the page it said,
    "Last night I had a dream that prompted me to write" (exact words).

    Now this story may seem either delusional (I still have letter), or random chance to a skeptic as there is no other alternative to them, but to me it was merely the beginning of research into a topic I have found continued validation in.

    Skeptics are not exposed to authentic PSI data, as there are enough failed dowsing experiments they can point to.

    I will revise Harold Shermans views with my own improved versions.

    I will state that, "The closest we can get to accurately sending thoughts from person to person is while the reciever is in REM sleep." I will suggest that the person I sent thoughts to as a teenager just happened to awaken during her dream and acted upon it, otherwise I could possibly have never found an interest in such study and may also have been a skeptic.

    This book is one I have seen video documentation of and was conducted in Double Blind, Locked Door, Soundproof sleep laboratory settings.

    Now. Many people will say well Zener cards don't show telepathy so it must not be real. There are many things that do not show telepathy. Drinking a cup of coffee also does not prove telepathy is real.

    Zener cards are like playing cards but have shapes like Star, Square, etc., and people have used them to try to send images to one another and prove or disprove telepathy. Why does this not work. Simple answer is because telepathy is not real.

    There is another simple answer also and it appears that succesful telepathy (imho) requires emotion and possibly urgency. If a University student is flipping and supposed to be thinking of Zener cards, how often do they start thinking about the cute blond girl they just met last night. Is there any emotion attached to the cards?

    "Thoughts through space" is yet another "Harold Sherman" book in which this famous screenwriter and Hollywood Icon documented telepathic communications while Sir Hubert Wilkins (famous arctic explorer) was on a mission above the arctic circle during a time when cell phone use was not as common (early 1900's). Many people of distinction collected the documents made by Sherman prior to Radio Communication, and were witness to these events, and he was credited with a hit rate above 70%.

    He also believes emotions are essential to communication via telepathy.

    Although Harold Sherman is remembered very little for his work in ESP he was a pioneer and also had many works on the subject.
    Now I have repeated REM telepathy many times. It cannot be replicated 100%; as humans are the only measurement tool and they vary greatly so The Scientific method is at bay until such method of communication can be recorded electronically.

    I have also suggested any and all can easily do experimenting with family and friends to verify these results if only for themselves, but I am afraid many here are too skeptical to partake in such simple at home experiments, and would rather wallow in ignorance;than spend a few hours out of their lives to learn truths.

    I have also attempted to discern numbers from the subconscious to be weighed against lottery numbers. I have often heard if Clairvoyance is real why do they all not win lotteries, to which I agreed, however the accuracy is astonishing but nowhere near enough to win thousands upon thousands of dollars.

    Once using a method of prediction I invented, I decided to advertise by posting on a lottery blog (lotterypost). I posted 6 numbers for the next 6/49 draw in my region and did this in an uneditable post. I got 3 out of 6 correct and won $10. I know I can do well above chance in any long series of predictions. I can defy mathematical probabilities for all draws in a 6 month period for example.

    Here is a link to that thread from long ago.

    I will attach link if it still exists after during an edit.

    Skeptics will say it was luck I just happened to blog about my method and got half right , and they will be correct as I normally only get 1 or 2 right which is still above chance in a 6/49 draw.

    So I have seen statistical probabilities of Clairvoyance. A lot more than is revealed here.

    I have also dreamt things that have come true shortly after.

    Now I have looked at explanations and theories about the Universe, and since science does not recognize telepathy or PSI then I have looked at other ideas as well. I have not seen ANY ideas that accept telepathy that does not include the possibility of mass consciousness or a possibility for god or spirits to exist.

    I have also experimented with something very strange called the law of attraction and would never think of waking up and not doing my daily affirmations as I have seen "magical" events unfold.

    There really is Magic/Sorcery/Miracles/God. I cannot even fathom how people could doubt it. Not anyone reasonably intelligent anyhow.

    I swear that everything I have written here is as truthful as I can recall. I know People maysay i predicted those numbers and got lucky, but i didnt start 56 threads on this until i got lucky. Odds were 56:1 you can guess 3 of 6.
    I swear my stories are as true as I can recall.

    so... This is how my
    Believe. Don't Believe. Try. Don't Try. No skin off my nose no matter what your efforts are. I'd advise to test it yourself instead of blindly following wrote. Repeated astonishing successes to yourself may serve to enlighten you to an amazing new world and more. Why would any sane man after hearing my speech at least not TRY? It is easy, and I reached a different country on my very first try. You can maintain your skepticism, but at least try telepathy as many times as it takes to get good at it and know it is real.

    EDIT: Before responding with a long winded skeptic view, keep in mind I have likely heard your argument already from an assortment of people. I also; will likely not be influenced towards that standpoint, so maybe save your breath and keep it short. I understand your POV, and feel sorry for those investing that attitude. It is sad.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2013
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The more access one has to the right brain the more these phenomena appear for internal observation. This is why it is not hard for right brainers to believe in such things. The left brainer may not be aware, since these phenomena are not processed in the left brain. In the ideal world left brainers with good right brain access would experiment on themselves to help left brainers.

    The pre-humans, before civilization, were primarily right brained and needed to communicate with limited language since the left brain was less consciously used therefore language was limited. Civilization began with the rise of the left brain. The right brained pre-humans could, nevertheless, read each others minds through body language and emotions in the context of situations. A mother can know what her baby needs even before the child talks. Much of the psychic stuff comes from these ancient brain foundations.

    The right brain is the initial pathway the personality firmware step down into the cerebral matter. It needs the 3-D processing to work properly. For example, if you fell in love, the whirlwinds of romance and compulsion are not left brain rational, but right brain emotional and instinctive. The signal is 3-D but with a time element (4-D), which is why it can get very confusing and overwhelming.

    It is a basic human genetic based experience that is independent of time, culture and place. You can read old novels and empathize since it is timeless humanity. It become unique by means of the left brain which helps to differentiate our unique moment in space and time; food for the 3-D seed as it grows.

    In terms of exploring the unconscious mind, all the way to the firmware, you need to begin in the left brain to gain a sense of how the mind works. Then the experiment migrates internally to the right brain. It is from the right brain that you can back track tall the way toward the thalamus region where the firmware resides. The thalamus is the most wired part of the brain and one has to sail through through thalamo-cortico-thalamic loops and not drown in the waves; ego can dissolve.
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Dude, I specifically focused on your assertion that you can prove the existence of God. If God actually exists it would mean that there actually is an invisible, illogical supernatural universe from which at least one fantastic creature emerges at random intervals for the purpose of whimsically and often petulantly perturbing the behavior of the natural universe. In other words, the natural universe is not a closed system, so the scientific method has no integrity and we might as well all go back to being busboys.

    Instead of responding to my challenge, you chose to bait-and-switch to a different portion of your post, which I barely challenged at all in a flippant comment further down in my own post. Based upon what we have learned about the universe--and after all the 20th was the Century of Physics just as the 19th was the Century of Chemistry--I'll accept it as "true beyond a reasonable doubt" that telepathy is impossible, at least if the two heads are more than a few meters apart. After all, we have a pretty good order-of-magnitude estimate of how much energy our brain uses, and it's not enough to transmit a sentence or two beyond that distance with any fidelity--given that everybody else would be transmitting their thoughts at the same time!

    Nonetheless, you have provided evidence, respectable evidence at that (not the aforementioned scorch on the tortilla), so you have complied with the rule of Laplace and your assertion must be treated with respect.

    The existence of telepathy would be an amazing discovery that would put you on the cover of every magazine, but it would not falsify all of science like the existence of God would. And you have not provided any evidence for the existence of God. It was that particular assertion that I specifically challenged, and you did not respond.

    Simple home experiments, conducted by people who know and love each other, do not have all the controls that laboratory experiments have.

    Professional gamblers win thousands upon thousands of dollars, and their accuracy is only around 80%. There are so many self-identified "professional psychics" out there, you'd think that a consensus of them would be able to at least predict the outcome of an election. And how come not one of them foresaw 9/11? Do they EVER pop up to take credit for their astounding predictive skills after ANY extraordinary event?

    My wife and I were members of CSICOP in the 1980s, when James Randi was its leader, and we saw many of his presentations in which he showed how virtually all alleged paranormal feats are merely tried-and-true stage magic. It's hard work and requires a lot of training and equipment, and you have to have the right personality to get your audience into the right frame of mind to see what you want them to see instead of what's really happening two inches outside their field of vision.

    The debunkers always explain themselves in intricate detail, leaving no questions unanswered. The proponents of paranormal beliefs never do that.

    Any person who has faith that he can actually do that would make a career out of it, if only to use his winnings to finance his experiments with telepathy. Why haven't you done this? You're humbly telling us that you couldn't get rich by doing this, but geeze you could certainly make enough money to quit your day job!

    Someone has to say this: how do we know you're telling the truth? I could say that I had sex with Lauren Hutton last night (hey, you pick a hot babe from your generation and I'll pick one from mine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) and everybody here would ask me for evidence. So where's yours?

    Even you have to admit that the vast majority of claims of the paranormal are fraudulent.

    It's because you're one guy on an internet board bragging about accomplishments for which you have no evidence of scientific quality: the testimony of trusted professional first-hand observers and of trusted professional debunkers like James Randi who would find any tricks and equipment. None of us even knows you personally. And you want us to trust your assertion that you did all these amazing things? Come on dude. Get real.

    Shall we start a poll? A: How many of you believe that kwhilborn did all these things? B: How many of you believe that he's just making this shit up to entertain us?

    You have made absolutely no attempt to substantiate any of these claims.

    Your oath might be acceptable in a court of law where you're only trying to convince people that you have done some perfectly ordinary things. We'd get to see your "tells" (facial expression and other body language), hear your tone of voice, and listen to your friends and family swear that you're a law-abiding citizen.

    But your oath means nothing in this context. You could swear that Jesus Christ knocked on your door last night and asked to use your bathroom. At least in that case we'd probably believe that you believe what you're saying is true, since absolutely nobody knows what Jesus looked like!

    This is a place of science. One of the key steps in the scientific method is peer review. You have given us nothing to review! Your assurances that all these things happened and you're telling the truth about them won't even get you into the front gate of the Academy! Show us some respectable evidence.

    You've certainly put a lot of effort into this. I'd guess that you'll be really disappointed if we don't believe you. Sorry 'bout that.

    Why should we put our own energy into doing something that you have completely failed to convince us even happened??? The way peer-review works is that we take a very comprehensive look at your experiment, all the tools you used, and all the evidence you produced. THEN we attempt to duplicate it. You haven't shown us anything. Not even an amateur video of one of your sessions. Considering that 95% of the population has a video camera, I think you can understand why we find this just a little bit odd.

    Because it's just one more thing to add to our busy schedule, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that you are TELLING THE TRUTH. You're telling us things that are truly remarkable, that claim to falsify some of the canonic principles of science, yet you produce no evidence and no corroboration.

    Why should any sane man take time out of his busy day to do your own homework? I'd rather use my time to try to track down Lauren Hutton. She's real.
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    This type of story is commonly encountered. It stems from an assumption that if one event follows another, there must be a causal connection. The problem is that, in order for such a causal connection to exist, you have to make really insane assumptions about how nature works - in this case the assumption that it's possible to transmit thoughts through space, usually on account of some developed power. What's so bad abut this is that it defies everything we know about nature, which is that this does not ever actually happen, only that there is a mistaken belief that it does happen, as judged by the irrational (or otherwise disordered) mind.

    Illusion breaks down when you spend a lot of time looking at nature through a microscope. It certainly doesn't mean that awe and wonder die there - they obviously become heightened. But you no longer live in the comfort of the palm reader, magician or psychic who feel that they no don't need to subscribe to the laws of nature, that these laws can be repealed at will. To a scientist nothing could be more detrimental to one's mental health, as it would entail departures from reality so severe that it would unpin all reason from its moorings and reduce us to people living in their fantasies, deluded or hallucinating or worse. We certainly would question whether our microscopes are lying to us, and probably extend this to a sense of paranoia about the people around us who we may also feel are lying to us. Pretty soon we'd be trapped inside a Matrix of conspiracy, only half-awake and unable to break out. Sounds like a nightmare.

    In the topic here - a possible link between IQ and intelligence, I think you would find a similar result by testing the IQ of people who believe in metaphysics and the atheists who oppose metaphysics (for just about the same reason that atheists deny the religious folks' claim that God exists). That is, there has to be a willingness to rely on the reality and stability of the physical world in order to understand the things that people with a high IQ know and are able to apply when completing the IQ test.
  21. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    @ Fraggle Rock,

    Thank you for a well thought out response. It makes me feel better as I had put some effort into my last post. I would also add that my last post was not for my own benefit as I hope some may read it and at least consider an open mind.

    I could argue that laboratory personnel might not always be inspired enough to put the emotion behind a sent message, but I'd be wrong because I have seen labs produce convincing evidence that is worth reading. The only telepathy experiments I would sponsor have already been completed at the dream laboratory in Maimonides Medical Center in New York City, where, over a ten-year period, they conducted pioneering scientific experiments in telepathic dreaming. I think their results seemed pretty conclusive and yet they are ignored as much as any other experiments in PSI.

    If you are attempting to send a message to a family member or friend over a great distance then what sort of controls are necessary. You can decide what and when to send. One suggested experiment is to attempt to wake up a friend at some random time at some random date. Obviously; if you partake in this experiment 8 days after you make such an arrangement and your friend contacts you the following morning all freaked out then that might be considered a positive response.

    If you tried to send a message to your wife in the next room then obviously she might hear your voice (I speak out loud when sending), and even though she is sleeping may subconsciously respond so this would obviously be a bad choice for an experiment.

    Now clairvoyance is much easier to test at home because no controls need to be in place. If you are attempting to pick the winner of a game, presidential election, or even a horserace there is always the possibility of guessing correctly based on odds, polls, and opinions of people around you. That is one reason I have thought lottery numbers can be counted on to be pretty random, and you can experiment to your hearts content knowing that the results cannot (legally) be influenced in advance.

    Not everyone has a lab at their disposal. If you are willing to write off the majority of any decent written evidence as luck then the only choice is to experience these things. Experiencing them has a lot more "WOW" factor and it is very "in your face".

    You made a comment, "How do we know you are telling the truth?". Sadly you will never know. I know I was telling the truth. The original story I told about the girl from Rochester I have repeated many times. I used to tell it using the girls real name and during an internet search many years later she found the story and contacted me. We had not spoken in 15 years or so. I relayed that she was basically my first psychic experience and she laughed and said, "I'm glad I was your first.", but we have not spoken since.

    I had even made a Youtube video about it, in which I misspelled "Harold Sherman" and wrote 2am-3pm as the hour I used or something like that, but it was a quick production that has yielded a bit of interest on youtube with 50 000+ views.


    None of this proves my honesty about it or anything else I have discussed, but I know I am being honest.

    I also enjoyed James Randi. You can view many episodes of his debunking television show on youtube.

    I also can do stage magic, and I enjoy entertaining. I also have a very well trained performing dog (Jack Russell). I can sometimes be found wandering the streets at busker festivals entertaining. I understand misdirection and trickery.

    I also do not buy into many of the things he debunked, but I certainly have an open mind towards some of them. I think many of the more popular notions such as Astrology, pendulums, Dowsing, and more may have merit if what I believe to be true is real. I certainly have no time for spoon benders.

    I DO ADMIT THE VAST MAJORITY OF SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS ARE LIKELY FRAUDULENT. Just the ones arising from schizophrenia alone must account for the majority.

    NOTE: You have described god as being from an illogical universe and also describe him/it as a fantastic creature.

    In my view God is everything. He is all matter and non matter. There was once an empty consciousness in a space without matter. Matter was created and with slight manipulations over billions of years he managed to create life. Life was created for god to experience things. There is no way god could ever experience camping in the Australian Outback if he had not created our world. He would just be a lonely conscious for eternity. Now I also think god is capable of sending ideas, thoughts, into our heads, and can manipulate our surroundings somewhat, but I think he is just a part of nature and that he must follow certain scientific rules. I do not think the red sea ever parted, but I think faith has cured cancers.

    So I do not view god as illogical. I do not know though.

    My previous post was entirely about god although you do not recognize it as so. I did say

    I believe telepathy is science and that it MUST be discoverable. I do not view it as "magic". I am FORCED to entertain telepathy theories that are not mainstream, because nothing about telepathy/precognition is mainstream science. Many theories that do exist also allow for a god consciousness as would seem very plausible if we are all connected in our minds. If every man, woman, and child was connected together in our minds then that plain of communication could also be filled with spirit that is god.

    My basis for belief in god started with my belief in telepathy. I am in a reversed situation. I started my life non-religious and agnostic/atheist, and it was through experimenting with telepathy and the study of science that made me religious. I will assume many here will not buy that, but it is a truth for me.

    I am very keen about our world, and science has been a large part of my life. I was always good in science and that led me to a career as a soil engineer. I also do not always follow the most popular views but I also often do. The point here is that discussing telepathy openly does not help my credibility here on Sciforums. I understand there are many here who will circle my name and draw an arrow to it that says "wingding" because of this stance. I have very often opened myself up for ridicule here because I am standing up for what I have seen. It would be much easier to just be quiet and go along with the crowd as I can the speak on other topics with a less "wingding" label upon me.

    My desire to "Entertain" here with stories would have been beaten out of me here a decade ago. My "stories" are not often believed by skeptics.

    So if I lie to be labelled a wingding then that would seem silly to me. I can say "I swear what I have discussed is truth", but I understand there is no need to believe what I say. This is why I suggest people try it themselves and I wish you wouldn't discourage that. It may not be lab settings with controls, but at least it is a start.

    The best investments are in yourself. Imagine for a second that what I say is real. Imagine you attempt and succeed at telepathy many times. Even Sigmund Freud used telepathy to converse with people (his sister, etc). Now imagine you began to accept it as reality. This in turn would open up many doors. Trying to grasp how telepathy could exist might make us explore the ideas of mass consciousness which surely must exist if telepathy does, and from there we can look into even more, such as the belief in life after death and God. Telepathy and Precognition. How can time even be real if precognition is possible? PSI belief is only a smallest of stepping stones into expanded realizations that might make your life more enjoyable. How sad it must be for you to think that when you die you blink out of existence. This is why a sane man should take time out of his busy day... Wait.. I never said busy day. Do it for fun on weekends or when you are already up late with acid reflux, or when the teenagers next door are partying all through the night. The point is that I think any sane man would try this. I think it is insane not to. Your entire concept of reality is at stake. Your intelligence is at stake.

    Using my method is a bit of a pain in the long run. Imagine spending 2-3 hours looking at pictures that look identical and voting whether the subliminal choice inside is a winning number.

    I am unsure if you understand or have the ability to view Auto-stereo-grams, but if you are familiar with them then you can see why they were chosen as a subliminal method.

    You can try choosing between shapes on this screen to see how much "fun" it can be. You need a break after a few months of it.

    Read what types of shapes are in the boxes above and then decide which is which. Then mouseover to see the hidden shape. Please note: These are Random dot Auto-stereo-grams and anyone with 2 eyes could focus in and see them clearly, but for our purposes you should just look at surface image. There really is an image inside and if you doubt then research auto-stereo-grams. Using this and several other methods of hiding subliminal choices was my idea.

    I still say I can do better than chance at predicting lottery numbers in the long run. You say I could get richer by doing this? How? I am open for suggestions. How can I get richer by being able to predict 1 or 2 numbers in a long series of 649 type draws? I know I could get richer if I could predict all 6, but I am claiming to be able to beat probabilities not predict with 100% accuracy.


    good luck in your search for Lauren Hutton.

    reading for the road....
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    they aren't supposed to be.
    it's a common statistical type of error.
    it's where 2 variables suggest each other but aren't related.
  23. IncogNegro Banned Banned

    I just can't believe religious people tolerate such a survey...

    "Sure you want to see who is more intelligent? Well I'll skew the statistics so when you come here complaining about it... You really find out".....

Share This Page