Archive for the Conversion Category

A Conversation Regarding the Universe to be Consciousness

Posted in Conversion, Faith, Free-thought, LOGIC, Philosophy, Science on July 17, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Dean Rose: Today marks the HARMONIC CONVERGENCE arrival of the 9th Wave of Cosmic Consciousness energy from the Number 1 Grand Central Sun leading into the change of 2012 – everybody be sure to radiate the message of love, peace, joy, truth, enlightenment, abundance and positivity!! Our intentions will define whatever future we will get, so think of a good one today and tomorrow!! The Universe is listening…
Me: Damn, I lost my tinfoil hat…

Dean Rose: All is consciousness my friend 🙂

Me: Ok, I’ll humor you on this.

What do you mean and what is your logic?

Dean Rose: Hmmm how to say it easily…

Me: You cannot prove that the material world is an illusion. It is possible but unprovable. There is no reason to believe in something which is unprovable.

Dean Rose: It is very easily provable, if you have a powerful electron microscope, you’d be able to see that all physical matter is made of vibrational energy which interracts directly with the mind of the observer, ergo the physical Universe is a product of consciousness. The exterior world comes to our senses as waves of this energy which our sensestransmit as electrical impulses to our brain where we decode the information and build a picture of reality on the screen of our consciousness. What looks like it’s on the outside is in reality, through the looking glass, all on the inside. What is left to prove? I’m sure you have heard the philosophical question if a tree falls over in the woods and there;s no living creature there to hear it does it make a sound? n Well extrapolate that further and ask, if there is no life in the Universe, does the Universe exist? The answer to that question reveals the connection between life and the Universe; that they are one and the same.

Me: “matter is made of energy = universe is consciousness”

That does not follow.

Furthermore, you cannot verify the truth of physical evidence. Thus physical evidence cannot be a rational base for philosophy. Only pure logic can.

Your last post is cluttered with blatant logical fallacies.

Dean Rose: Lol no it isn’t it makes perfect sense. Matter=energy=consciousness. Simple. Your use of articulation may serve you well on the scrabble board but it doesn’t help you solve or debunk this theory. The Universe is a holographic projection of consciousness = fact. And the physical evidence which you state cannot be verified has already been proven by mainstream quantum science.

Me: You don’t have your head around what is knowable and unknowable.

The only things which are knowable with any certain are self-evidences(such as “I think therefore I am”) and axioms which are concepts which must be true because in any attempt to dismiss it you would actually have to apply it(Such as “a thing is itself). Everything else is only our best guess and requires faith to accept as certain.

Dean Rose: The only thing that is knowable is what we know as individuals, we do not know what someone else knows 🙂

Me: Correct. But also there are only certain things an individual can know. I stated these. They are self-evidences and axioms.

Dean Rose: You miss out the wisdom of experience

Me: There is no way to know that anything we experience apart from ourselves is real. It is entirely irrational to base a philosophy off of physical evidence.

Dean Rose: It is irrational to suggest that experience does not constitute reality. Indeed the only thing that is real is what we experience. What a 33rd degree freemason experiences is very different from an Ayahuasquero Shaman experiences, but they are both real. Everything is real and nothing is real. Paradoxes are real too. So is bitter sweet irony 😛

Me: According to the rational ends of this logic which you have attempted to present there is no such thing as hallucinations.

And by the way, it is possible for there to be subjective paradoxes but not objective ones. Don’t know what that has to do with the discussion though. “everything is real and nothing is real” is completely irrational and in contradiction to axiomatic principles.

Be careful about your next move.

Dean Rose: Haha I love verbal chess, I find it intellectually stimulating. It can be difficult to satisfactorily express non-linear concepts in a linear form. Similarly the reductionist scientific mindset fails to adequately explain non-materialism. No I don’t think there is such a thing as an hallucination, just altered states of perception. Similarly if there is only one consciousness permeating all things then there is not true objectivity, just the illusion of separation. And the everything and nothing is real statement was the paradox I was referring to, so the logic of my statement remains intact. My point is, all things in reality exist within self-containing spheres of awareness, and the further out of the small sphere in the centre you move, the more aware you become of the interconnectedness of all things. Thank you for engaging in this refreshing repartee 🙂

Me: I am enjoying this too.

To say that the universe is only consciousness requires faith, due to the fact that it cannot intrinsically be know to be true.

How do you justify this?

Dean Rose: Because the Universe is an Ocean of energy, vibrating at different resonances and overlapping itself. The frequency at which this energy vibrates results in a corresponding field of manifestation. All physical matter is made of (at it’s most fundamental level) this conscious energy within the same area of the spectrum as our 5 senses. All weneed to access higher dimensions or parallel planes of reality is to shift, or elevate, the frequency of our perception. That’s how a Shaman can access the spirit world. For example, the astral and dream planes are real places in this Universe, not separate from us in Space or in Time, but overlapping us right now, just out of our field of perception. A shift in that perception reveals the invisible to us, and at the highest level of all, at the root, or the source, all things are connected as One. One Universal Consciousness. Us 🙂

Me: Are you telling me you have personally experienced a higher level of consciousness which actually makes it self-evident to you that the universe is consciousness?

1. If you say yes you could be right but I personally have not experienced it and thus have no reason to believe you.

2. If you say yes you may be delusional and have no justification in your belief . I still have no reason to believe you.

3. If you say no, only that others have experienced it, than you yourself actually have no justification in your belief. I still have no reason o believe you.

You have narrowed yourself down to three options in which I have no justification in believing you. Two of which there isn’t even a justification for yourself.

Dean Rose: Yes 🙂 I always say if you don’t have the wisdom of experience all you have is second hand belief. I don’t expect you to believe me on faith, you’ll just have to see for yourself what you truly are. Inlakesh

Me: Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion.

Dean Rose: The pleasure was half mine 🙂


Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Posted in Atheism, Conversion, futurism, Leftism, Politics, Religion, Science on May 29, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Why atheism will replace religion:
Why atheism grows faster than religion
Published on May 18, 2010

by Nigel Barber, Ph.D.

Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is thus a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism?

First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism (Zuckerman, 2007). Belief in God declines in more developed countries and is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.

The question of why economically developed countries turn to atheism has been batted around by anthropologists for about eighty years. Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence (see my earlier post on this).

Atheists are more likely to be college-educated people who live in cities and they are highly concentrated in the social democracies of Europe. Atheism thus blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure. But why?

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion.

In addition to being the opium of the people (as Karl Marx contemptuously phrased it), religion may also promote fertility, particularly by promoting marriage, according to copious data reviewed by Sanderson (2008). Large families are preferred in agricultural countries as a source of free labor. In developed “atheist” countries, women have exceptionally small families and do not need religion helping them to raise large families.

Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion.

Moreover, sport psychologists find that sports spectatorship provides much the same kind of social, and spiritual, benefits as people obtain from church membership. In a previous post, I made the case that sports is replacing religion. Precisely the same argument can be made for other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply involved. Indeed, religion is striking back by trying to compete in popular media, such as televangelism and Christian rock and by hosting live secular entertainment in church.

The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people’s daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.

Sanderson, S. K. (2008). Adaptation, evolution, and religion. Religion, 38, 141-156.
Zuckerman, P. (2007). Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In M. Martin (ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book is not held by any U.S. Library.

Original Article:…

What is Anarchy?

Posted in Anarchy, Capitalism, Conversion, Free-thought, Leftism, Libertarianism, Politics, Socialism on April 30, 2010 by FЯEEDO

I have found that time and time again I have been converting people after simply explaining to them what Anarchy actually is.

Now keep in mind that there’s a group of people called Anarcho-Capitalists who would completely disagree with me on this. Even though every time I debate the semantical topic with them,  they are left confounded and unable to defend their stance. Not the stance on whether Anarcho-Capitalism is preferable or not but just whether it should actually be referred to as Anarchy.

Now, Anarchy in Greek means “No Rulers”.

However, Anarchy does not mean chaos and does not even mean the absence of  rules as you have so been told. There indeed are rules, just no rulers. I have many friends who proclaim themselves Anarchist, many of them Anarcho-Capitalist and I am sure they would all agree with me on that.

Here is where I split ways with Anarcho-Capitalists: They say Anarchy is simply a entirely voluntary society; one without government. But I say it is more than that. I think the correct term that Anarcho-Capitalists are looking for is Panarchism. I say Anarchism is actually the complete absence of hierarchies, which would include the Capitalistic hierarchy. Panarchism means you have a choice, while Anarchism is a specific choice to be made.

I will come back to Panarchism in a bit. Because an Anarchy cannot exist unless there is also Panarchy. But first I will go over how exactly a society functions without hierarchy.

In an Anarchist society, as I define it, everyone has the same amount of political power. No single individual has anymore power than any other single individual. Instead of the decision-making process being structured like a pyramid or a ladder, it is a completely level field.

To say that one person has authority over another is to say that such a person has more rights than the other.

So Anarchism can actually be summed up in just one single word; equality. If you follow that one simple thing to it’s rational ends, you will have Anarchy.

Hierarchy and equality cannot co-exist. You must pick one; I picked equality.

The most technical way I can sum-up Anarchy is that it’s a Socialist Direct-Democracy which takes place in a Panarchy, which is to say voluntary.

And now you may ask; why Socialist? or why Democracy?

Well like I said, Anarchy does indeed have rules. It is no free-for-all.

The definition of Socialist that I am using here is worker ownership of the means of production. What that means is that workers self-manage themselves democratically instead of having a boss. This is the traditional meaning of the word Socialist.

Unfortunately the word has been confused with both State-Socialism, which I adamantally abhor, and redistribution of wealth, which I am in favor of but still find it unfortunate that the term Socialism has been confused with it for the most likely reason that most Socialists favor it.

State-Socialism is state ownership of the means of production as opposed to true Socialism, as I mentioned, is worker ownership of the means of production.

If workers owned their own work-space there would be no need for minimum wage, no need for the 8 hour day, no need for vacation time rules or regulations demanding for a decent working environment, because the workers would be able to make the suitable conditions they favor for themselves. No longer could you be fired and sent to starve simply because a boss didn’t like your hair or a face you gave him or because he was in a bad mood that day. Perfect balance between suitable working conditions and economic efficiency would finally be found.

And what about Direct-Democracy? Well, what Socialism already makes is Direct-Democracy within the work-place. And what Panarchism does, which I’ll get into next, is turn governments in businesses. So turning the government into a direct-democracy is only a rational extension of putting Panarchism and Socialism together.

And now for Panarchism. This is the even more misunderstood part. People assume that because Anarchies(or Panarchies) are voluntary, it means you get to do whatever you want; just go ahead and start shooting people in the streets, you’ll choose not to go to jail. But that is simply not how it works.

Panarchy, as I mentioned, is turning governments into businesses. What this means is that you can choose to have a government’s services or not by choosing to pay for them. So instead of a government forcing you to use it’s services and also forcing you to pay for them, both acts are voluntary. When this happens, borders disappear.  In other words, you are able to choose your government without moving.(keep in mind that it may not be particularly correct to refer to them as governments since they are voluntary, perhaps they should be called communes) But it it would probably be more beneficial for you to pick one of these communes which are stationed near you, for quick use of emergency services.

It is also an open choice for you to pick no commune at all. Which means you abide by no laws on your own property besides your own. However, this would be unreasonably risky for you since you would have no aid if someone commits a wrong against you or your property. Not picking a commune does not mean you would be able to freely torture and kill people on your property. Chances are that the people you’re doing such a thing to would have their own communes which would intervene if they found out. And even if they didn’t have such communes, good Samaritans would most likely still intervene or some commune may wage war against you as larger nations do against each other today.

To further illustrate my point of turning governments into businesses; I could contrast it with what would happen if you turned businesses into governments. People say that forced government is necessary because we need policing. But do we not need food just as much as policing? The answer is yes, we obviously need food. So imagine that one day a grocery store comes to town. This grocery store then forces you to take it’s products and then forces you to pay for them. It also declares that you cannot buy from any other grocery store, in order to do so you would have to move out of town. You may not want the food from that store, the prices may be too high, or you may not agree with where some of the money goes. For this scenario to happen, I’m sure you agree, would be complete lunacy. So why has government gotten away with it? Because you can’t shoot people with food.

So now I hope you understand what Anarchy is. If you have questions, please feel free to ask them in the comments area below.


Posted in Anarchy, Conversion, Defiance, Leftism, Libertarianism, Politics, Socialism on March 20, 2010 by FЯEEDO

I am now a Libertarian Socialist which is, by the way, far different that your generic Socialism you always hear of.

But I have absolutely no doubt that I will change my mind once again in no time. I’m beginning to see a pattern of changing about twice every year.

An Examination of Human Nature and the Discontents of Authority

Posted in Anarchy, Atheism, Buddhism, Capitalism, Christianity, Cold-reading, Conversion, Creationism, Defiance, Derren_Brown, Evolution, Experiment, Faith, Free-speech, Free-thought, God, happy, Hindu, Islam, Justice, Leftism, Libertarianism, LOGIC, Magic, Mind-control, Morality, Mormon, Muslim, Objectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Protesting, Psychic, Psychology, Purpose, Religion, Science, Sex, Skepticism, Socialism, strange, Super-natural on March 17, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Let it be known that I do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the videos below. I have provided so many for the purpose of providing different points of view and a broad context on the matter.

Now for the next series:

Now another series:

And to finish it off:

After viewing all these videos I have become very torn.

I think human nature is basically selfish. But also that selfishness is not a bad thing. That, in-fact, the right kind of selfishness is very good and is a healthy construct for morality.

I do not like Socialism because it refutes selfishness and attempts to oppress me with it’s own vision of morality; the same kind boasted by classical religion which is a pollutant of intellectual progress.

But I do not like Capitalism either because it has a foundation upon mind-control. It is merely another version of the state except that the state is authoritative through non-voluntary means whereas Capitalism is authoritative through means of indoctrination and retardation of the masses. Statism and Capitalism have the same ends except the state forces you there while Capitalism tricks you there.

A voice deep within me cries “There must be another alternative!”, but I don’t know what it is.

So for now I will say this:

Direct politics is of trivial importance. No matter what government or lack thereof you have it will still be all for nothing if you have an intellectually bankrupt people. The key to changing society for the better is not through government but through culture; through philosophy and through science.

The Internet’s Effect on Religion.

Posted in Atheism, Christianity, Conversion, Faith, Free-thought, God, Internet, Islam, LOGIC, Mind-control, Mormon, Psychology, Religion, Science, Skepticism on March 15, 2010 by FЯEEDO

My Interview With Tim Cooley

Posted in Atheism, AWESOME, Christianity, Conversion, Interview, Mom, Tim_Cooley on March 4, 2010 by FЯEEDO










Tim: Tell us a bit about yourself.

Freedo: My birth-name is Dakota Spann but around the web everyone calls me Freedo. I’m 15 years old. My two largest passions in life are philosophy and just making friends.


Tim: How long have you been an atheist?

Freedo: How long I’ve been an Atheist isn’t quite certain but the time at which I decided to no longer be Christian was on May 25, 2009. I became Atheist maybe a month or two later. Not even a year but it seems much, much longer than that.


Tim: Why did you choose to become an atheist?

Freedo: Why I converted from Christianity are separate reasons. But why I specifically became an Atheist was the irrationality of the concept of faith and the supposed morality of religion. I explain it further on my blog which you sponsor.


Tim: Tell us a bit about your choosing to “come out of the closet”.

Freedo: Just felt like something that needed to be done. I was tired of living a lie.


Tim: How did your parents react?

Freedo: Haven’t told my step-dad, he’s not really apart of my life. But my mother actually took it altogether pretty well. I drug it on for so long getting to the point that she saw it coming. When I finally said it she just calmly asked “why?”. But then as the conversation went on she got a little more emotional but not too bad.


Tim: Tell us about how you approached them.

Freedo: I just decided that today was the day. We had just had an argument about my schooling and she still wanted to talk about it. I went to mom and said ” I’ll talk with you, but I want you to come with me”. We took a walk to my well known “thinking area” down in the woods. We had our conversation about schooling, although my real intentions for bringing her there was to talk about my conversion. When that conversation had reached it’s end I almost chickened out if it weren’t for one little thing she said. “No matter what you do, I will always support you…that is unless you do something against God’s will”. I at first didn’t want to crush her feelings, which is why I had delayed it for so long, but after that I knew she didn’t deserve my sympathy.


Tim: How does it feel now that you’ve “come out”?

Freedo: It was extremely hard getting it out there but let me tell ya, I feel absolutely fantastic! A huge load has been taken off my shoulders.


Tim: Do you think other atheists should come out of the closet? Do you agree with the statement “the sooner the better”?

Freedo: Definitely. They should sooner or later, of course only you know when it’s the right time for you. There may be other things involved, so I don’t necessarily say sooner is better but in my case it was.


Try viewing this post in Tim’s blog: