s1eep

Are you saying that belief in such things is irrational or unreasonable? Is the universe capable to create a dream existence like man? I'm trusting the universe like I would a friend, I'm asserting that it could produce greater things than myself--I don't think this is irrational, humans have dreams, why can't dreams be created by something else? I'm taking natural evidence of something heavenly, and applying to things above and beyond myself in capacity.

What about the possibility of heaven because of the universes greatness (above humanity)??

People are skeptical as to whether Heaven exists; although, there is no evidence to support Heaven. A lot of humans believe in morality, and they try to be good in accordance with life so that they will be granted salvation in the afterlife. People get dreams, some, including myself, have dreams almost every night. Dreams are natural phenomenon that I think represent Heaven. In a dream you are superhuman; with the helping hand of numerous chemical reactions your mind creates a personal universe or world, and this universe or world is often filled with things that you want. The other night, I dreamt I was with someone that I really want to be with--this is something that I will never experience in reality. It showed me that in dreams even my deepest wants are fulfilled, wants that are sometimes impossible to achieve in reality. In dreams, by simply wanting, a dream world is created. We need not put in any effort, as all work is done for us. Our mind is equipped with the ability to procreate, and our imagination becomes a reality. When I die, I believe I will be transferred to a dream state, where all my wants are fulfilled; where I can create and dictate universes with the simplest thought. If a human mind can create a dream state, I have full faith that the universe, or life as a whole, can create something that's greater. Is this a rational, yet optimistic, belief? This is not a belief in a magical kingdom in the sky, this is a belief in a life that's great, greater than my own, and possible as shown by dreams. All a dream needs to exist is someone to create it, there is no evidence for a dream universe created by a personal creator, but could this be a possibility since humans can create dreams aided by chemical reactions; could there be dream planets that have adapted these chemical reactions in the same way as humans have evolved to have them? If I was somehow to be reincarnated into one of these dream creations, then I would be in heaven, so to speak, because my ability would help fulfill all of my wants--it's the best reality. Are dreams evidence of heaven because of the universes overall greatness in comparison to a human? Are dreams a greater reality that what we are experiencing in our reality? Or are they representing the best reality?

I agree that religions should prove their God before believing; hence the question, how do they verify God? Otherwise it's delusional belief; rather than belief in something coherent. How is God coherent to believers?

I'm right in saying that calling things nonsense, which in itself as a word, in conversation, is nonsense; it could be described as stupidity--it is perversity. You're just calling names and continuing, plus, any unorthodox idea, by members as well, is often laced with civil looking, sort of sophisticated insults. What is the word crackpot? What is it meant to mean? That he is insane? Why is he insane? Or why, perhaps, are you not? It's the simplest most stupidest kind of response, and it's stupid in a perverse, 'mind-controlling' way (you just want to stop people looking at it, you don't really have an opinion; you are the true troll, but this isn't a good thing--people have freedom to believe and you, on some occasions, oppress free belief). You are the crackpot. You're just trying to be popular; it is the same as bullying, you're doing stupid egotistical perverse things to someone just for the thrill--and then I guess you thrive off of your masculinity. I dislike the way you act because it is stupid, not because I am offended by you, but because I'm offended sometimes by stupidity--because it is perverse, and rotary, I don't like it. (It is as disgusting, to me, as pedophilia).

The semantics were round about "ramblings of a mad man"--this is mere perversion of his character and nothing to do with his theory. It's a very childish and cowardly way to operate, I agree with the before poster who said that things deserve a proper dismissal. A simple, "He's insane" is not any reason to not dismiss it properly; as said, it's just an insult--one that he has not accepted, and justly, an act of perversity. He is clearly not diagnosed insane, he has an unorthodox theory that is a long shot away from any of Today's proclaimed credible theories, but it's still a theory, and, I'm sure, it's still science.

I don't think what you say should be taken seriously. It's nothing more than a perverse insult...

You're definitely religious in that sense, but not with a belief in God.

What are you doing now then?

noun[mass noun] the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

The Earth exists. What's not evident about Earth's geometry? I'm simply applying a different kind of Math to the provided evidence of Earth. Earth, as a being, exists. It was my evidence, I suggested that it has rotational extremes, and that's why the equator was squared, because this is a way we can observe these extremes.

I agree with what you are saying, except Atheism is not a belief in God, not anti-religion, it's anti-God; and therefore I don't agree with the statement "atheism is NOT a religion". You can also call religions, cults or groups; you are a group of people and you have beliefs (or you can also say, codes, morals, values). This defines Atheism as a religion. That doesn't mean you believe in God--the definition of Atheist doesn't assert that Atheists are against religion, only God.

You're still not comprehending the fact that it's still science; supporting evidence exists that was found via observation. You have ignored evidence. I am correct in saying it's not "modernized science". Evidence is still evidence, ignorance of such evidence is suppression of possibly intellectual discussion. Why don't we separate my evidence from the thread and you refute it--the evidence I gave is enough to support my speculation--it's not driven by other theories, and is unorthodox, but evidence provided is real evidence and should be taken seriously. You provided no evidence.

Doesn't mean it's not science, it just doesn't agree with some preferred scientific theories. It's not the egotistical conformed science, but it's still science, and isn't stupid. The evidence is still evidence, it is not contradicted by more evidence, you've yet to provide any reason as to why it's incorrect. EDIT: Where is this evidence? In your head? The evidence I supplied was credible and intelligible evidence...

Religion isn't only about Gods, it also is associated with other beliefs. Where in Taoism is God? That's the same as thinking Nature is just trees like some unwise people; you think Religion is just God, but it is much more than that. It's commonly God, but that's due to socialization, not the reality of religion.

A part in my own writing stands as evidence. I used the Earth, and the geometry of the Earth. An expert does not have power over human observation, people have the capacity to choose whether or not they think something is true. The evidence I've provided says something is true--this hasn't been refuted. It's possible to discuss and stimulates the intellect, it is intelligible; you're the one who is unintelligent for the inability to comprehend the evidence I supplied without directing insults at the creator. Evidence was ignored. The part that was evidence, where I used the Earth and points on the Earth, can it be cut off and put into a new thread that discusses four days? More evidence I supplied via link is different to the originator and holds merit beyond the originator, and shouldn't be associated directly to him, even though I don't think even he is insane.

What is the point of religion? What is Religion trying to express, with or without God? This is not a discussion on whether God exists or not, but rather, what God means to the people who believe, and the meaning, to the interested indviduals, of religion. And I have more questions, but for the religious who believe in God, or even Atheist opinions: how do you know God? What have you done to verify your belief?

I used real subjects. The Earth, and people.

It's not such a hard world, you're not struggling being religious, I'm merely trying to strip you of credibility when you say you're not religious. Stop making this some rigmarole of self-importance.

I also linked a different website, and wrote a clear explanation myself that has not been refuted. Your inability to see the true intellect behind the post is an act of perversion (for others can and will); stupidity should not be in a position above anyone, intelligence should. You are unintelligent to not see and address the evidence provided, under the impression it's nonsensical evidence. EDIT: And okay, I will leave it at that. May you strip the part of my thread where I provided my own evidence and make a new thread different to Timecube, just the suggestion of four days.

I provided logical evidence in the thread I posted. Your opinion that is was "nonsense" was not supported by reasoning why, and was ultimately irrational. If you gave it enough time for others will less sequitur intelligence, to post, they would have made sense of it, and a discussion onto deeper subjects would have emerged. The idea does not concur with modernized science, but it is scientific, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; I think you're playing with the word 'intellectual'.

I will not break the rules, but I think you're suppressing discussion that isn't against the rules.

I think that moderators suppress discussion on some things because they are unorthodox, I think that this forum suppresses your right of free speech. I believe in Timecube and I understand it, and moderators here are inexperienced with Timecube--they don't know anything about it, they haven't gave it a chance, and they call it stupid, like children, blocking it off from the rest of us. We cannot discuss it and give it true reconciliation because the moderators suppress our right to, just because we might prove them false, on the offhand. Some things may be hidden from you to keep you submissive... -wisdom.

You are not the definition of the word Atheist, but you are the Atheist in question. Are YOU religious? Yes. I believe that it's wise to know that Atheists are people, and that people have beliefs. A belief an Atheist has, that is, the man who is the Atheist, is in Atheism. He is not an Atheist because of his character if he discusses his belief, he becomes the man who discusses it. It not the definition of Atheist that were referring to, therefore; again, it's the man or men in question. Are you trying to tell me there aren't a group of Atheists advocating beliefs? I see them everywhere, it speaks for itself. You are religious, but you don't believe in God, and this is your religion, otherwise be incognito and stay away from God--then you are the meaning behind the word Atheist, because your character shows it. Right now you don't possess the self-awareness to know that you're really deluded to think that what you're doing isn't religious.

I think he's a great scientist. Rational wiki is full of Atheists and perverse, probably lonely, adults. It's foolish to take anything on that website seriously. He made sense, take the four days example I provided.