Any lightworkers?

[cannabineer]

you are truly getting to the point where i will not respond anymore. how can i be honest and nice to what seems like a untrained little puppy trying to rip my head off? we are here to shed light. don't attempt to block light, we spread in every known direction with a perpetually increasing magnitude. you simply cannot do it. we're getting too high for you my friend, you don't want to left behind believe me on this. be careful what you respond if anything. this is not a threat, just get ready to know we are turning things up around here, those who attack us will get shunned. too high for this shit. namaste my brother and one love.

A doctrine or process based on untruth cannot be in the service of light. cn

 

[ganja man23]

A doctrine or process based on untruth cannot be in the service of light. cn

truth is relevant to the observer. you don't mean to tell me your claims are more right then mine now do you cn? i hope not, that would be quite redundant for such an 'intelligent' fella.

 

[cannabineer]

truth is relevant to the observer. you don't mean to tell me your claims are more right then mine now do you cn? i hope not, that would be quite redundant for such an 'intelligent' fella.

What I am saying is that when you make claims that affect the physical world, those can and should be checked. If the doctrine doesn't correspond with what we know of nature when discussing natural phenomena, we know to hold it to closer scrutiny. When it glosses over or otherwise shows contempt for the need to be consistent with nature, we know it's a fraud.

I've highlighted some irregularities in the physical component previously. The response I got was on an ethical level with "lalalalaaaa I can't hear you!". It reduces my interest in being polite and engaging in circumlocution. There is a tremendous moral difference in providing the following answers to a hard question:
1) I can't! I've tried, and would welcome help.
2) I won't, or Bug off.
Answers of type 2 are a guarantee that I'm not dealing with a serious student. cn

 

[ganja man23]

What I am saying is that when you make claims that affect the physical world, those can and should be checked. If the doctrine doesn't correspond with what we know of nature when discussing natural phenomena, we know to hold it to closer scrutiny. When it glosses over or otherwise shows contempt for the need to be consistent with nature, we know it's a fraud.

I've highlighted some irregularities in the physical component previously. The response I got was on an ethical level with "lalalalaaaa I can't hear you!". It reduces my interest in being polite and engaging in circumlocution. There is a tremendous moral difference in providing the following answers to a hard question:
1) I can't! I've tried, and would welcome help.
2) I won't, or Bug off.
Answers of type 2 are a guarantee that I'm not dealing with a serious student. cn

why don't you just go verify my claims instead of automatically dismissing them? you strive for proving how intelligent you are when you contribue NOTHING to what you stand for, being science. the way i see it you're jealous that i'm contributing to spread the light message.

start eating healthy and meditate, it's proven DMT exposes you to new realities (experiences if you wish to call them that). the sheer fact that you stand here in attempt to take my spiritual knowledge and experiences away from me without ever having been there first hand shows you are damaged to the point where you cannot feel that i am trying to communicate with someone who is not you or any of your little riu friends. i already got what i wanted here, i spread my light. no matter who receives it, i know i did my part. i can sense you have never done that so don't type trying to dismiss all the work done by myself and others. when you've experienced what i and many others have then you have the right to talk. at the moment you don't. i know you love responding but how about thinking about what i have said? goodbye and good luck my friend cn.

 

[Padawanbater2]

truth is relevant to the observer.

What do you mean by this?

 

[ganja man23]

What do you mean by this?

whatever you want it to mean.

 

[billybob420]

whatever you want it to mean.

That's so deep it almost sounds like some bullshit.

 

[cannabineer]

why don't you just go verify my claims instead of automatically dismissing them?

As the claimant, that is your job. Even so, I have met you halfway on a couple of subjects and said "this does not ring true". The record shows how you responded. You're simply not interested in considering the weaknesses in what you preach. If you did, you'd recognize that I'm providing a service rather like that of a proofreader. i offered the opportunity to improve your ideology by making sure that at least the peripheral verifiables were clean. You interpret my wish to help as an assault. Hmmmmmm.

you strive for proving how intelligent you are when you contribute NOTHING to what you stand for, being science. the way i see it you're jealous that i'm contributing to spread the light message.

I am contributing one thing, unimportant to you but important to prospective host organisms of the ascension fraud: Please think about the glossy nonsense being propagated on Youtube and the Net. As for your accusation of jealousy, you completely misunderstand me. I'd like for the basic premise to be true; after all it promises so much.
But I insist that no violence be done to natural philosophy in the course of selling the kumbaya.

start eating healthy and meditate, it's proven DMT exposes you to new realities (experiences if you wish to call them that). the sheer fact that you stand here in attempt to take my spiritual knowledge and experiences away from me

Show where I have attempted to do such a thing. i respect your spiritual beliefs. Where I draw the line is at obvious bullshit phenomenology.

without ever having been there first hand shows you are damaged to the point where you cannot feel that i am trying to communicate with someone who is not you or any of your little riu friends. i already got what i wanted here, i spread my light. no matter who receives it, i know i did my part. i can sense you have never done that so don't type trying to dismiss all the work done by myself and others.

What astounds me is that you do not know much about me. You do not know who I am. You do not know who i once was. You know very little about the journeys and stays of my life. Do you seriously consider yourself qualified to judge me so patly? Is this lightbearer behavior?

when you've experienced what i and many others have then you have the right to talk. at the moment you don't. i know you love responding but how about thinking about what i have said? goodbye and good luck my friend cn.

Good luck to you as well. I have the strong feeling you're in for disappointment when the prophecies do what prophecies have thus far invariably done. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Good luck to you as well. I have the strong feeling you're in for disappointment when the prophecies do what prophecies have thus far invariably done. cn

I suggest you look at the Hopi prophecy...

 

[Padawanbater2]

whatever you want it to mean.

Are you saying what might be true to you might not be true to me?

 

[cannabineer]

wut? you have a great set up and delivery in place cn don't go changing what ain't broke but you would be advised to remember your audience if you worry about your long posts not being read

This is what I got from that besides a headache: energy is not always matter well it is but it isn't because you see these tiny invisible things made of energy are .... my head

Sorry Mellow.
My primary point is that electrons in solids, liquids etc. don't vibrate. They occupy energy levels describable by quantum chemistry/physics, but do so as a sort of pastel smear that doesn't vibrate, oscillate or have any characteristic frequencies. I'm trying to point out that the model is simplistic to the point of being false, and that's a bad way to start a chain of reason. It leads me to suspect the result. cn

 

[ganja man23]

Sorry Mellow.
My primary point is that electrons in solids, liquids etc. don't vibrate. They occupy energy levels describable by quantum chemistry/physics, but do so as a sort of pastel smear that doesn't vibrate, oscillate or have any characteristic frequencies. I'm trying to point out that the model is simplistic to the point of being false, and that's a bad way to start a chain of reason. It leads me to suspect the result. cn

we are just beginning to study and discover other sub atomic particles (within protons, neutrons and electrons) such as neutrinos, higgs bosons, quarks, etc. this will be the fundamental component to completing the string theory validation. atoms appear solid to us on the level of physicality so they appear stable. consider that they may only appear solid because of the way the subatomic particles within them behave, but what if you were to change the way that these particles behave, then what? we cannot speculate this yet because the evidence is not there. i can guess that when they discover this, those sub sub-atomic particles will all be vibrating with a certain frequency as well (and this is what gives atoms the illusion of stability), but that's my guess not my discovery.

 

[tyler.durden]

the fact that you limit yourself to the speed of light shows you no different and less creative then your fellow tree monkey. you and your friends may not realize it but you're still swinging in trees, throwing feces at each other. all distance is relative to be travelled within an instant. even if you limit yourself to linear displacement, assuming you could replicate speeds near that of light, it could still be travelled in what feels like seconds for many light years.

i'm here to offer information and you have every right to assume i pulled it out of my ass. so i recommend if you don't like the smell of my asshole, don't reach up there and take big whiffs. i realize the taste of assole is great to some but please show some boundaries.

your evolution of the pyramids is rather amusing but fails to incorporate the giza complex within the energy grid, as a compas lined up with the four directions of the compass, the fact that it incorporates advanced mathematical formulas and not to mention the fact that we cannot build anything these primitives. just like when i offer information and many don't want to listen, i won't be offended. your posts aren't going to convince anyone who knows what they're talking about to change minds, you're simply tooting your horn and nothing wrong with that which is why i would much rather ignore you.

Your posts have done more to discredit and expose yourself for the ignorant, mean-spirited charlatan that you are than mine could ever hope to do. You are not here to learn, you are here to spread your endless stream of bullshit you refer to as light. You do not demonstrate even an elementary school knowledge of science, and seem to revel in your ignorance. It's also obvious that you are a very desperate person, you are so emotionally invested your ridiculous fairytales that you run as fast as you can from even basic facts of reality. There are a few living jokes on this forum, and the one thing I can say to your credit is that you have joined their ranks with fewer posts than I've ever seen. You will now be viewed for amusement or with disdain, I choose amusement. Post on, my friend. You will continue to attempt to spread your darkness, and we will continue to to defend logic, reason and actual knowledge. It's a familar S&S&P dance, and the tune plays on...

 

[cannabineer]

we are just beginning to study and discover other sub atomic particles (within protons, neutrons and electrons) such as neutrinos, higgs bosons, quarks, etc. this will be the fundamental component to completing the string theory validation. atoms appear solid to us on the level of physicality so they appear stable. consider that they may only appear solid because of the way the subatomic particles within them behave, but what if you were to change the way that these particles behave, then what? we cannot speculate this yet because the evidence is not there. i can guess that when they discover this, those sub sub-atomic particles will all be vibrating with a certain frequency as well (and this is what gives atoms the illusion of stability), but that's my guess not my discovery.

In the case of electrons, this is proven to be "not so". Orbitals do not vibrate! The energy levels in the nucleus are also describable by orbital theory. The vibration metaphor is not useful to describe these tinyscale interactions.
Now if the string model (which is at this time neither proven nor mortally wounded) holds, then using oscillating strings to model those subnucleons is workable. But I ask you to avoid the jump of logic being championed by the Deepak Chopra wannabes: that the quantum strings behave in the way we've leared macroscopic strings to do. Strings hum when plucked; we learn this (and delight in it) as children. But my instinct is to say "No, until proven" about possibly overapplying the metaphor to the world of the smallest. It's a wiser approach than credulity, "yes until someone kicks it in, and then still Yes". Jmo, of course. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Your posts have done more to discredit and expose yourself for the ignorant, mean-spirited charlatan that you are than mine could ever hope to do

Says the Hard-atheist.

 

[tyler.durden]

Says the Hard-atheist.

I like soup...

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

^^HAH! Too funny.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

You misunderstood the question. You could google anything and learn the very basics of the subject. What have you gained from the spiritual side of the arguments?

I have learned to be more structured and calm. I have learned that the atheists here have the same mindset as angry bible thumpers as they try to force their ideas onto others because they are convinced its the correct path to follow. Atheists have little bit more subtle approach though. With you I have learned a lot though, Im not just mentioning these as personal attacks so that I can get a reaction. You have been more open about your beliefs, imo, and that has given me more to work with. You've shown me that there is conflict at the base of your beliefs that you are in complete denial of, and in our last discussion you lashed out at me for pointing it out. Im going to guess that most of the active skeptics on here have similar insecurities.

I think you should try to figure yourselves out before you try and tell someone of a different mindset how things work. Because really, who have you 'helped' here besides an impressionable southern boy? Sure you have the polite theists that are not phased by the opposing arguments, but they still stand firm in their beliefs. Most of crazies on here would like to discuss with like minded people rather than sway the judgement of others. It took me a while to figure that out but at first I got sucked into the never ending game you guys play for self benefit.

Knowing yourself is far beyond what a electron microscope or hadron collider can teach you.

(Cough cough cough...)

I hope he knows who this is directed to lol.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I have learned to be more structured and calm. I have learned that the atheists here have the same mindset as angry bible thumpers as they try to force their ideas onto others because they are convinced its the correct path to follow. Atheists have little bit more subtle approach though. With you I have learned a lot though, Im not just mentioning these as personal attacks so that I can get a reaction. You have been more open about your beliefs, imo, and that has given me more to work with. You've shown me that there is conflict at the base of your beliefs that you are in complete denial of, and in our last discussion you lashed out at me for pointing it out. Im going to guess that most of the active skeptics on here have similar insecurities.

Not directed at me, but this needs to be addressed.


These attacks you speak of exist only inside your mind. Many of us have tried to explain this to you and you never grasp it. You view even the explanation as an attack.

When was the last time you saw an atheist go door to door? The analogy falls flat on it's face. You expect us to be quiet when asked about beliefs, anything else is an attack on someones religion. When we explain them, you say we're pushing our beliefs onto people.

You feel persecuted because you yourself can't explain the things you believe without resorting to the supernatural or pseudoscience. The conflict resides with you, not us. We can explain the things we believe in by natural means, and we can defend them with reason and logic. The things we can't explain, we have no problem admitting it. You on the other hand jump immediately to faulty conclusions based on false premises, avoiding logic at all costs, and when questioned, instead of asking questions or accepting new information and altering your beliefs accordingly, you take the defensive and exclaim more personal attacks on your right to believe whatever you want.

News flash, friend.. science doesn't care what you think, it will work without you believing in it, and you will still enjoy and take for granted all the luxuries it provides.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

lol oh Pad, I love science, just dont like the reluctance it has in exploring the rest of reality.

Also, Im afraid the insecurities are still held by you. It doesnt really take that much to figure that out. Just gotta scroll down the forum page and see that a closet hard-atheist is a mod for a subforum that begins with spirituality. Most of us here would just like to discuss with like minded people and have a good time, no recruiting going on, not trying hard to prove anything, because those like minded people will see how these ideas will apply to the illusion of reality. Then we get people like you who seem offended that these things are being discussed. You say "Nuh uh! This scientific authority says this about that, therefore that is bullshit, blah blah blah". Only then it turns into a game of 'prove it!', and that game only benefits you guys because no one from our side of the argument ever cares about what you guys have to say, just as you dont care about what we have to say because you find it ridiculous and it somehow offends you. If we did benefit from your criticisms, much more of us would be questioning ourselves and starting to favor agnosticism and atheism, that is clearly not the case.

REALITY doesnt really give a shit about your beliefs.