the truth is here!
- Thread starter tablariddim
- Start date
Corp.Hudson
Registered Senior Member
truestory...who called dexter names? Who picked on dexter for being younger?
People who advertise laziness make me mad. You are not lazy if you walk around saying "im lazy, look at me im lazy," which is what dexter is doing. Dexter is obviously not lazy if he is taking the time and effort to post on this board. Unmotivated in school is perhaps a better term for him.
People who advertise laziness make me mad. You are not lazy if you walk around saying "im lazy, look at me im lazy," which is what dexter is doing. Dexter is obviously not lazy if he is taking the time and effort to post on this board. Unmotivated in school is perhaps a better term for him.
Hey Corp 
A number of people have been cracking on him because they don't like his "spelling" and someone actually called him "Dimwit" the other day. He's in 8th grade for cryin' out loud! I'd would like it if the adults in question here could bring themselves to be a little more understanding and to be open to hearing what he has to say without being so concerned about and critical of his spelling. (Although, to his credit, he's not letting the nasty comments stifle his expression). I'd also like for us to be able to respond to dexter and each other with a bit more patience and kindness.
I have see a great many different, but interesting, minds on this board over the past couple of months. Unfortunately, I've also seen people leave after being treated poorly by others. So I guess, in a way, you could say that that's what makes me mad.
A number of people have been cracking on him because they don't like his "spelling" and someone actually called him "Dimwit" the other day. He's in 8th grade for cryin' out loud! I'd would like it if the adults in question here could bring themselves to be a little more understanding and to be open to hearing what he has to say without being so concerned about and critical of his spelling. (Although, to his credit, he's not letting the nasty comments stifle his expression). I'd also like for us to be able to respond to dexter and each other with a bit more patience and kindness.
I have see a great many different, but interesting, minds on this board over the past couple of months. Unfortunately, I've also seen people leave after being treated poorly by others. So I guess, in a way, you could say that that's what makes me mad.
Truestory,
I believe that 666 and yourself are thinking of two different monkeys if you know what I'm saying.
If everyone found out that extraterrestrials do exist and they are visiting earth there would be a panic, make no mistake about that. Did everyone
forget about the radio broadcast that supports this?
I believe that 666 and yourself are thinking of two different monkeys if you know what I'm saying.
If everyone found out that extraterrestrials do exist and they are visiting earth there would be a panic, make no mistake about that. Did everyone
forget about the radio broadcast that supports this?
Dave,
when I put forward an analogy trying to describe a theory about the possible existence of a soul and its relationship to the universe, by mentioning a medium that I think we can all understand, ie, the internet.
Firstly, you completely missed the point 'cause you assumed I was trying to start up some kind of cult with the internet as, er 'god', ahem! you didn't even remark on my analogy concerning water and re-incarnation which was indeed a second theory
and if any of you 'searchers of truth (with meaning, or truth without meaning?'had read the whole piece correctly you would have put the two theories together and understood the general idea and that what I put forward is feasible as a possibility - I believe that parts of the answers to some very deep questions are staring us in the face because they are all around us and within us in nature.
Secondly, you personally told me to piss off
and stop writing that 4 letter word, because this forum was for aliens and et's and so I naturally assumed that you don't think that those lifeforms have any concept of, or questions relating to the soul. Because if they did, then this would indeed be the ideal forum for them to discuss it in, surely don't you think so Dave? I have not mentioned religion, faith or god but you are quick to jump to the wrong conclusion.
Boris,
you re-buff me with a clarity and pure scientific logic, which I find impressive!
However, if you were to direct part of your brilliant mind to a section more commonly known as , 'the inner you', you will begin to see a lot more than facts, figures and mathematics. Because no matter how much you try to learn from the physical realm you will never be able to understand, the 'why?'
The irony is that although you're willing to accept the possibility of multiverses and are able to picture our universe as the crest of a wave on top of a deep ocean of other universes, (which sounds like a multi dimensional infinitismal environment if ever I saw one) you simply refuse to accept the possibility of an ivisible or spiritual dimension that might be connected to ours.'Can your back see it's own shadow?'
I could go on but lifes too short and that is what drives me to understand why we have this brief experience of conciousness. Why are we here to be teased and tantalised by the wonders of the universe if it's not to ultimately conciously become as one with it,
learning how to, through countless re-incarnations and innumerable varieties of life!
Thanks for that moment of your time!
when I put forward an analogy trying to describe a theory about the possible existence of a soul and its relationship to the universe, by mentioning a medium that I think we can all understand, ie, the internet.
Firstly, you completely missed the point 'cause you assumed I was trying to start up some kind of cult with the internet as, er 'god', ahem! you didn't even remark on my analogy concerning water and re-incarnation which was indeed a second theory
and if any of you 'searchers of truth (with meaning, or truth without meaning?'had read the whole piece correctly you would have put the two theories together and understood the general idea and that what I put forward is feasible as a possibility - I believe that parts of the answers to some very deep questions are staring us in the face because they are all around us and within us in nature.
Secondly, you personally told me to piss off
and stop writing that 4 letter word, because this forum was for aliens and et's and so I naturally assumed that you don't think that those lifeforms have any concept of, or questions relating to the soul. Because if they did, then this would indeed be the ideal forum for them to discuss it in, surely don't you think so Dave? I have not mentioned religion, faith or god but you are quick to jump to the wrong conclusion.
Boris,
you re-buff me with a clarity and pure scientific logic, which I find impressive!
However, if you were to direct part of your brilliant mind to a section more commonly known as , 'the inner you', you will begin to see a lot more than facts, figures and mathematics. Because no matter how much you try to learn from the physical realm you will never be able to understand, the 'why?'
The irony is that although you're willing to accept the possibility of multiverses and are able to picture our universe as the crest of a wave on top of a deep ocean of other universes, (which sounds like a multi dimensional infinitismal environment if ever I saw one) you simply refuse to accept the possibility of an ivisible or spiritual dimension that might be connected to ours.'Can your back see it's own shadow?'
I could go on but lifes too short and that is what drives me to understand why we have this brief experience of conciousness. Why are we here to be teased and tantalised by the wonders of the universe if it's not to ultimately conciously become as one with it,
learning how to, through countless re-incarnations and innumerable varieties of life!
Thanks for that moment of your time!
Oxygen,
I knew someone would mention spanking that naughty primate sooner or later!
I believe Alien was referring to H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds", which was long before Art Bell's radio program. Listen to Orson Welles' opening monologue:
http://earthstation1.simplenet.com/War_of_the_Worlds/ww02.wav
[This message has been edited by Searcher (edited November 11, 1999).]
I knew someone would mention spanking that naughty primate sooner or later!
I believe Alien was referring to H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds", which was long before Art Bell's radio program. Listen to Orson Welles' opening monologue:
http://earthstation1.simplenet.com/War_of_the_Worlds/ww02.wav
[This message has been edited by Searcher (edited November 11, 1999).]
Well War of the Worlds was brodcasted such a long time ago. I don't belive it is very good mesuring stick to use for todays generation. Pepole were a tad bit more ignorant and willing to belive what they heard or read. Today the pepole have been openly lied to by not only thier politcal leaders, but the news media is blantly slanted and over hyped.
My monkeys on the lose, watch out he spits!
------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born
My monkeys on the lose, watch out he spits!
------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born
tab..alphabet....
My last post invited you to stay!
What 4 letter word are you refering to?
now to the meat...
<hr>
"which was indeed a second theory and if any of you 'searchers of truth (with meaning, or truth without meaning?'had read the whole piece correctly you would have put the two theories together and understood the general idea and that what I put forward is feasible as a possibility "
<hr>
1. Maybe if you had been more accurate in your premise when posting instead of taking for granted we'd all understand what you are on about, it would have read correctly.
2. Present your hypothesis as a whole not in pieces - you shouldn't expect the reader to complete a jigsaw puzzle.
3. general - possible - feasible - any lamer than that??? I thought the topic title was 'the truth is here'... where?? where is it?? what truth?? you only present a possibility, but based on what??...
4. If you are including me in the group of 'searchers of truth', wrong again! If you can't show me a spaceship - part or whole, an alien body, live or dead, whole or part thereof don't bother.
My last post invited you to stay!
What 4 letter word are you refering to?
now to the meat...
<hr>
"which was indeed a second theory and if any of you 'searchers of truth (with meaning, or truth without meaning?'had read the whole piece correctly you would have put the two theories together and understood the general idea and that what I put forward is feasible as a possibility "
<hr>
1. Maybe if you had been more accurate in your premise when posting instead of taking for granted we'd all understand what you are on about, it would have read correctly.
2. Present your hypothesis as a whole not in pieces - you shouldn't expect the reader to complete a jigsaw puzzle.
3. general - possible - feasible - any lamer than that??? I thought the topic title was 'the truth is here'... where?? where is it?? what truth?? you only present a possibility, but based on what??...
4. If you are including me in the group of 'searchers of truth', wrong again! If you can't show me a spaceship - part or whole, an alien body, live or dead, whole or part thereof don't bother.
666,
Regardless of who lies to us, if aliens made themselves known to the world how would people stay calm when many fear what they can't understand, many that simply are convinced its all hogwash,
many that believe its satan,many who do not want to even discuss the issue because it threatens them and this is not taking in to account any hostile actions the aliens may take. Think about it.
Regardless of who lies to us, if aliens made themselves known to the world how would people stay calm when many fear what they can't understand, many that simply are convinced its all hogwash,
many that believe its satan,many who do not want to even discuss the issue because it threatens them and this is not taking in to account any hostile actions the aliens may take. Think about it.
tablariddim,
It always comes down to the question of "why". Strangely enough, most people find it inconceivable that there in fact may be no "why". Our existence may indeed have no purpose whatsoever. We might just be organic pond scum whipped into funny patterns by the motion of the waves. Alternatively, there might be a purpose, or a reason, but not at all in a way we can possibly ever conceive.
On the other hand, when I think of "why", I tend to think of causes. When it comes to intelligent causation, meaning and intentionality come into play. However, nothing indicates that the universe originates from an intelligent source, or is governed by one. In fact, all of our science (by its mere existence and verifiability) seems to suggest that the universe is entirely mechanistic and at its most fundamental level devoid of all intelligence. It's like a computer program playing itself out, and we are nothing but fascinating bit patterns with peculiar functional properties. In such a universe, "why" becomes merely a synonym for "how". Reasons become identical with causes.
I find this perspective very plausible for many reasons. Besides being indicated by success of science, the mechanistic interpretation of the universe stands in a favorable contrast with a mentalistic one. It has been a notorious and unfailingly repeated mistake for humans to always ascribe their own qualities and properties to everything else around them. They used to attribute spirits, emotions, goals and intelligence to all sorts of inanimate objects, like the clouds, the trees, or the mountains. They also used to imbue various lower animals with human minds (American Indians still do that!) They also ended up believing that they are the center of the universe, and that the universe was created especially for them. Now, we are hearing oft-expressed views that alien intelligent organisms must for some reason resemble us, think like us, function like us, or have goals comprehensible by us. Fundamentally, the vast majority of people have always believed that the universe itself must have some kind of a mind to it (like God, perhaps). Viewed in this light, the theological musings seem like mere extensions of past fallacies. We are still projecting our own nature onto the world; we expect it to make sense to us from <u>our</u>, human, perspective. Why the world should be so accomodating is beyond me. In fact, since practically all anscient hypotheses about the universe have proven to be utter failures, I would be very surprised if the theological perspective turns out to be correct.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 12, 1999).]
It always comes down to the question of "why". Strangely enough, most people find it inconceivable that there in fact may be no "why". Our existence may indeed have no purpose whatsoever. We might just be organic pond scum whipped into funny patterns by the motion of the waves. Alternatively, there might be a purpose, or a reason, but not at all in a way we can possibly ever conceive.
On the other hand, when I think of "why", I tend to think of causes. When it comes to intelligent causation, meaning and intentionality come into play. However, nothing indicates that the universe originates from an intelligent source, or is governed by one. In fact, all of our science (by its mere existence and verifiability) seems to suggest that the universe is entirely mechanistic and at its most fundamental level devoid of all intelligence. It's like a computer program playing itself out, and we are nothing but fascinating bit patterns with peculiar functional properties. In such a universe, "why" becomes merely a synonym for "how". Reasons become identical with causes.
I find this perspective very plausible for many reasons. Besides being indicated by success of science, the mechanistic interpretation of the universe stands in a favorable contrast with a mentalistic one. It has been a notorious and unfailingly repeated mistake for humans to always ascribe their own qualities and properties to everything else around them. They used to attribute spirits, emotions, goals and intelligence to all sorts of inanimate objects, like the clouds, the trees, or the mountains. They also used to imbue various lower animals with human minds (American Indians still do that!) They also ended up believing that they are the center of the universe, and that the universe was created especially for them. Now, we are hearing oft-expressed views that alien intelligent organisms must for some reason resemble us, think like us, function like us, or have goals comprehensible by us. Fundamentally, the vast majority of people have always believed that the universe itself must have some kind of a mind to it (like God, perhaps). Viewed in this light, the theological musings seem like mere extensions of past fallacies. We are still projecting our own nature onto the world; we expect it to make sense to us from <u>our</u>, human, perspective. Why the world should be so accomodating is beyond me. In fact, since practically all anscient hypotheses about the universe have proven to be utter failures, I would be very surprised if the theological perspective turns out to be correct.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 12, 1999).]
Alien-Back when War of the Worlds was first broadcast, people used to freak out if they saw Black people drinking out of the Whites Only fountain.
Assuming the ETs didn't land with their ray guns drawn, zapping everything in sight, I think most (not all) people would be more curious and astonished instead of fearful. After all these years of Sci-fi movies with their alien makeup getting more and more realistic, I think we're pretty jaded.
Do you remember 'Alien Nation'? (Don't get any ideas!) One of the actresses went out into LA in alien makeup just to see the reaction. Most people didn't even give her a second look, two thought she was a burn victim, and the rest just thought it was pretty neat that she was from another planet. Of course, the aliens on that show looked human enough, but even if an ET wasn't remotely humanoid I think that as long as communication could be established most people wouldn't go running for their shotguns. Caution may be the norm, but not panic.
And if they landed in San Francisco's Castro Street district, nobody would notice.
Assuming the ETs didn't land with their ray guns drawn, zapping everything in sight, I think most (not all) people would be more curious and astonished instead of fearful. After all these years of Sci-fi movies with their alien makeup getting more and more realistic, I think we're pretty jaded.
Do you remember 'Alien Nation'? (Don't get any ideas!
) One of the actresses went out into LA in alien makeup just to see the reaction. Most people didn't even give her a second look, two thought she was a burn victim, and the rest just thought it was pretty neat that she was from another planet. Of course, the aliens on that show looked human enough, but even if an ET wasn't remotely humanoid I think that as long as communication could be established most people wouldn't go running for their shotguns. Caution may be the norm, but not panic.And if they landed in San Francisco's Castro Street district, nobody would notice.
Oops, forgot to address the second issue.
If ETs landed and took hostile actions, then yes, I can see a majority of people running for the hills (song cue: "Run For the Hills" by Iron Maiden). That same Hollywood Dream Machine that has conditioned us to accept extraterrestrials (but not each other, oddly enough) has also conditioned us to believe that they could kick our double-helix posteriors.
Hey, wait a minute. Could Hollywood be under the control of extraterrestrials who want us to accept them as our masters without a fight? I know, I know. I'll go back to my bong... (Stupid monkey's been keeping it to himself!)
If ETs landed and took hostile actions, then yes, I can see a majority of people running for the hills (song cue: "Run For the Hills" by Iron Maiden). That same Hollywood Dream Machine that has conditioned us to accept extraterrestrials (but not each other, oddly enough) has also conditioned us to believe that they could kick our double-helix posteriors.
Hey, wait a minute. Could Hollywood be under the control of extraterrestrials who want us to accept them as our masters without a fight? I know, I know. I'll go back to my bong... (Stupid monkey's been keeping it to himself!)
Dave,
you continuously show that you're a lazy reader - no wonder you couldn't understand my posting - the 4 letter word is, 'shit'
( just doesn't stop)- and you wrote it.The truth of intagibles is always subjective and I certainly gave you a nice slice of mine. Do you expect me or anyone for that matter to be able to actually prove the existence of a soul or a spiritual dimension ? if you were a bug living in a pond would you believe it if another bug told you that pretty soon you would go through a physical transformation and leave your environment to go and live in a completely different dimension? of-course not! but how could that other bug prove it?
Boris,
I hear ya but cutting edge physics is continually making discoveries which raise big questions as to whether the universe happened randomly or was in actual fact some part of a grand design.
For example, 'coincidences', some of which involve the fundamental forces that bind together the universe. Coincidences such as this: the hearts of all atoms are made up of protons and neutrons , held together by the so-called strong nuclear force. If that force were just a tiny bit weaker, protons would refuse to come together. This would mean that no element heavier than hydrogen could exist which would rule out carbon and hence human life.
On the other hand, if it were just a tiny bit stronger, protons would stick together so easily that hydrogen could not exist at all and that would rule out water, another key chemical fo life.
Another example of strange coincidences concerns the properties of sub atomic particles. For instance, the fact that electrons weigh so much less than protons or neutrons turns out to be crucial for the existence of chemicals essential for life. "It is a prerequisite for molecules like DNA maintaining their precise and distinctive structures", according to Professor Sir Martin Rees of Cambridge university (UK)."It is the electron mass that determines the overall size of atoms and the spacing between the atoms in a molecule."
The fact that protons and neutrons have almost but not quite, the same mass, also turns out to be crucial for life, says Rees.
"A neutron is heavier than a proton by 0.14 per cent, little more than one part in a thousand. But this difference, small though it is, is important because it exceeds the total mass of an electron. If electrons weren't so light, they would combine with protons to form neutrons, leaving no hydrogen."
I could cite further examples but I think you get the gist, the point is that you can observe the universe forming and evolving to such strict and strange criteria that it makes you wonder 'why'- that word again! - it chose that partircular pattern. It's as though there is some type of 'universe DNA' that knows exactly which route to follow.
Nuff for now, by the way, I lifted the science from Focus magazine March '99 issue and I would thank them very much not to sue me over it.
-MAY YOUR POPPADUMS ALWAYS BE SPICY-
you continuously show that you're a lazy reader - no wonder you couldn't understand my posting - the 4 letter word is, 'shit'
( just doesn't stop)- and you wrote it.The truth of intagibles is always subjective and I certainly gave you a nice slice of mine. Do you expect me or anyone for that matter to be able to actually prove the existence of a soul or a spiritual dimension ? if you were a bug living in a pond would you believe it if another bug told you that pretty soon you would go through a physical transformation and leave your environment to go and live in a completely different dimension? of-course not! but how could that other bug prove it?
Boris,
I hear ya but cutting edge physics is continually making discoveries which raise big questions as to whether the universe happened randomly or was in actual fact some part of a grand design.
For example, 'coincidences', some of which involve the fundamental forces that bind together the universe. Coincidences such as this: the hearts of all atoms are made up of protons and neutrons , held together by the so-called strong nuclear force. If that force were just a tiny bit weaker, protons would refuse to come together. This would mean that no element heavier than hydrogen could exist which would rule out carbon and hence human life.
On the other hand, if it were just a tiny bit stronger, protons would stick together so easily that hydrogen could not exist at all and that would rule out water, another key chemical fo life.
Another example of strange coincidences concerns the properties of sub atomic particles. For instance, the fact that electrons weigh so much less than protons or neutrons turns out to be crucial for the existence of chemicals essential for life. "It is a prerequisite for molecules like DNA maintaining their precise and distinctive structures", according to Professor Sir Martin Rees of Cambridge university (UK)."It is the electron mass that determines the overall size of atoms and the spacing between the atoms in a molecule."
The fact that protons and neutrons have almost but not quite, the same mass, also turns out to be crucial for life, says Rees.
"A neutron is heavier than a proton by 0.14 per cent, little more than one part in a thousand. But this difference, small though it is, is important because it exceeds the total mass of an electron. If electrons weren't so light, they would combine with protons to form neutrons, leaving no hydrogen."
I could cite further examples but I think you get the gist, the point is that you can observe the universe forming and evolving to such strict and strange criteria that it makes you wonder 'why'- that word again! - it chose that partircular pattern. It's as though there is some type of 'universe DNA' that knows exactly which route to follow.
Nuff for now, by the way, I lifted the science from Focus magazine March '99 issue and I would thank them very much not to sue me over it.
-MAY YOUR POPPADUMS ALWAYS BE SPICY-
Oxygen,
If you had a grey walk down the street and people knew it was the real thing instead of a robot or human with a bunch of makeup they would either run or fight it right? Now if there was a mass landing (even if it was a friendly one)
sh.. would hit the fan. It is not such a
leap to think the government could be conditioning us through Hollywood to accept these visitors if they know eventually we will have to deal with them whether they are good or bad.
These days people freak out if their
nintendo is not working so I'm not so sure they could deal with an advanced race of beings. I think the experience would be like jumping into a body of water with great white sharks you know they are in the water and you are left wondering if and when you are their next meal unlike what you would be thinking if you were observing them from shore where
you know they cannot hurt you.
If you had a grey walk down the street and people knew it was the real thing instead of a robot or human with a bunch of makeup they would either run or fight it right? Now if there was a mass landing (even if it was a friendly one)
sh.. would hit the fan. It is not such a
leap to think the government could be conditioning us through Hollywood to accept these visitors if they know eventually we will have to deal with them whether they are good or bad.
These days people freak out if their
nintendo is not working so I'm not so sure they could deal with an advanced race of beings. I think the experience would be like jumping into a body of water with great white sharks you know they are in the water and you are left wondering if and when you are their next meal unlike what you would be thinking if you were observing them from shore where
you know they cannot hurt you.