CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › lonestag15 › Posts

Posts by lonestag15

100 posts shown.

Zachary Cox69 says:

Jesus continues teaching: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father in heaven

"

So, circling back to what I was telling you—are we saying a person is justified before God (the Father) by their actions rather than just all that "Lord, Lord" sucking up?

And does that mean faith in Him isn't actually the main thing, and living a moral life is the real kicker?

From your perspective, could an atheist make it into the Kingdom of Heaven?

I need answers to all three questions—and please, don't just quote scripture at me, I've already read it all myself...
Thomas Nelson25 said:Freedom

Honestly, feels like it's all for nothing if you aren't out there doing the solo spiritual grind 😁

Well, I guess we are... we don't exactly have an official membership card or a ritual to prove it, right?
wearyowl29 said:Well, in my case, they baptized me and didn't ask me a single question!

It's actually pretty tough to "un-baptize" yourself because the organization doesn't want to rock the boat. They love keeping those numbers high for their statistics, even though in reality, they're smaller than they look since for most people, it's just cultural folklore and tradition rather than an actual way of life.

Hahaha, oh no, my heart bleeds for your suffering...
I'm guessing you were probably screaming your head off in the middle of a service when they did it... 😉

wearyowl29 said:Well, in my case, they baptized me and didn't ask me a single question!

It's actually pretty tough to "un-baptize" yourself because the organization doesn't want to rock the boat. They love keeping those numbers high for their statistics, even though in reality, they're smaller than they look since for most people, it's just cultural folklore and tradition rather than an actual way of life.

Nah, you just show up, get the paperwork, and you're out. Especially if you don't want them counting you in their little spreadsheets just to manipulate the data...
neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, I'll say it again: there's zero scientific proof for Kundalini. It just isn't recognized by any actual science out there.

Where exactly in any actual scientific discipline do you even see Kundalini being mentioned? Like, is there any single academic community out there that actually recognizes it as legit?

Nah, officially there’s zero connection to how much stuff you actually learned back in the day. Pseudoscience just isn't science, plain and simple.

You're trying to link those two things together, but honestly, that's just not how it works. In actual science, there's zero connection between them—elevated dopamine levels have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Look, I already made it clear—there are definitely practices out there that can actually mess with how your body releases hormones.

Man, you are seriously stuck on this dopamine thing. The human endocrine system is incredibly complex; it’s way more than just dopamine being the MVP or the only hormone that matters. Linking psychosis directly to "Kundalini rising" and blaming the practice is just your own take—it isn't some established scientific fact.

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...
neonmarlin39 said:First off, if we're talking about mainstream science, there's no such thing as "Kundalini rising." Not even close. And those symptoms you're talking about? Science doesn't explain them away by calling it "Kundalini."

It’s not even about whether you can measure dopamine or not. The point is, you shouldn't just jump to conclusions and link all those random things to "Kundalini rising." That's exactly what you're doing, and it's why you've wandered way too far from actual science. Plenty of different practices can mess with your endocrine system and hormone secretion (I have no idea why you're so hung up on dopamine specifically), just like psychedelics, psychoactive substances, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Please, don't tell me there's no "official" science behind this—just look it up online. This guy literally has a PhD on the subject, specifically focused on EEG research. And that’s not even touching on everything we know from the psychiatry side of things...

Piezoelectricity is a legitimate science... just like the connection between your spine and your brain...

Then there’s this other point I made—there isn't some official academic department where you just sit in a lecture hall learning about ways to shift brainwave frequencies (which doesn't mean people haven't spent their lives messing around with that and presenting data, obviously)... If you look into electrical engineering, there’s a massive pile of research out there regarding fringe science—or quasi-science, if you want to be pedantic—and a ton of it is just sitting online waiting for you, provided you actually have the drive to go find it. "Official" is just a label for whatever was taught twenty years ago... and honestly, it hasn't changed since.

neonmarlin39 said:First off, if we're talking about mainstream science, there's no such thing as "Kundalini rising." Not even close. And those symptoms you're talking about? Science doesn't explain them away by calling it "Kundalini."

It’s not even about whether you can measure dopamine or not. The point is, you shouldn't just jump to conclusions and link all those random things to "Kundalini rising." That's exactly what you're doing, and it's why you've wandered way too far from actual science. Plenty of different practices can mess with your endocrine system and hormone secretion (I have no idea why you're so hung up on dopamine specifically), just like psychedelics, psychoactive substances, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Is there actually a link between raising your Kundalini and spiking your dopamine levels? Or am I just tripping...

neonmarlin39 said:First off, if we're talking about mainstream science, there's no such thing as "Kundalini rising." Not even close. And those symptoms you're talking about? Science doesn't explain them away by calling it "Kundalini."

It’s not even about whether you can measure dopamine or not. The point is, you shouldn't just jump to conclusions and link all those random things to "Kundalini rising." That's exactly what you're doing, and it's why you've wandered way too far from actual science. Plenty of different practices can mess with your endocrine system and hormone secretion (I have no idea why you're so hung up on dopamine specifically), just like psychedelics, psychoactive substances, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

So first you go ahead and confirm that all these different approaches actually work...

So, why does dopamine even matter in all this? Because spiking those levels—or just having your receptors acting wonky—is exactly what triggers psychosis, schizophrenia, or even schizoaffective disorder. That’s why I keep hammering home that specific shared link between Kundalini practices and full-blown psychosis... It’s the common thread. Whether a certain dopamine threshold is going to flip someone's switch or not depends on the individual, obviously, but generally speaking? A little "proceed with caution" is probably the best advice you can get...
Thomas Nelson25 said:If you aren't part of the community... you're headed straight to hell.
Sadly, 😢

Heaven sounds pretty sweet
But hell's got all the best people 😉

...nah, let's just all grab our exit tickets haha—we'll probably end up in the same spot anyway...
Zachary Cox69 said:Exactly. If you didn't accept Him, you rejected Him. If He's the only way to salvation, then those who turn away are responsible for their own fate.

Every person should put in the work to figure out if God actually exists or not.
Once you settle that, the next step is figuring out which God is the real deal—there are way too many fakes out there. Third, once you recognize God and know who He truly is, you have to ask what that means for you personally—basically, how can I live a life that honors Him?

Look, if a person lives a decent life, it shouldn't matter if they believe in God or not... I mean, if God exists, He’d definitely prefer a moral atheist over some "believer" who acts like a jerk. But hey, if they actually follow science, a believer should be plenty moral enough anyway...

Zachary Cox69 said:Exactly. If you didn't accept Him, you rejected Him. If He's the only way to salvation, then those who turn away are responsible for their own fate.

Every person should put in the work to figure out if God actually exists or not.
Once you settle that, the next step is figuring out which God is the real deal—there are way too many fakes out there. Third, once you recognize God and know who He truly is, you have to ask what that means for you personally—basically, how can I live a life that honors Him?

True, at least put in the effort... just having a theory isn't the same as actual knowledge...

Zachary Cox69 said:Exactly. If you didn't accept Him, you rejected Him. If He's the only way to salvation, then those who turn away are responsible for their own fate.

Every person should put in the work to figure out if God actually exists or not.
Once you settle that, the next step is figuring out which God is the real deal—there are way too many fakes out there. Third, once you recognize God and know who He truly is, you have to ask what that means for you personally—basically, how can I live a life that honors Him?

There’s no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" God... if there's only one, then every religion is just a different attempt at interpreting the exact same thing.
The whole "right vs. wrong" God concept just creates nothing but conflict...

Personally, God is unfathomable to me, and I don't think we should have any idols representing Him (which is a commandment anyway)... honoring Him, to me, just means respecting His existence. The relationship between a human and that unknowable God can really only boil down to being grateful that I even exist...

And through that gratitude, you find humility...

As for "pleasing" God—well, you can only really try to please something that has human-like traits and wants to be catered to... but hey, if that's how you see God, then He surely puts morality and ethics first...
Zachary Cox69 said:I wouldn't go that far. A man is his own priest—he was in the church every single day—but unfortunately, he passed away, and age doesn't wait for anyone.
Sure, having a personal connection with God is huge, but going to church is still a good thing. If the community isn't right, you can easily skip it—no big deal. Church isn't just about priests or other spiritual leaders; it's about the people, men and women you can stand before God alongside.

My local pastor is such a nationalist—he spends more time rambling about politics than actually preaching—so I stopped going. I used to drive halfway across town just to hear this one older priest, though. He was such an inspiring speaker that the commute was totally worth it for his sermons.

So, we've got the church as a building and the Church as a community, yet somehow it seems like neither really matters...

What he said regarding meditation basically completely stripped away any need for a priest to act as a middleman. That's actually what I like about the whole statement. You believe in Bog—you don't need a lawyer to talk to Him.
wearyowl29 said:But what about the folks who find their own interests in His existence?

You hit the nail on the head when you said "we believe," but honestly, that freedom of choice feels pretty small and narrow to me. It reminds me of how kids are baptized—they're basically being funneled into these rigid, familial roles within the divine structure before they can even think for themselves.

Look, nobody’s forcing you to baptize a kid; it’s a decision made within the family unit... for instance, I wasn't even baptized at all. When it came time for First Communion, I actually liked the whole vibe and decided (as smart/dumb as I was back then) that I wanted both my baptism and my First Communion. So, my parents played it totally fair... other parents can just leave that choice up to their kids (like, my sister chose ethics class whenever she had the chance, while I stuck with religion)... honestly, it's all a family matter.

And if someone is already baptized but doesn't want anything to do with the church anymore, they can officially opt out... literally get a paper stating they aren't considered part of that community anymore.
neonmarlin39 said:So, in your book, just your own personal experience and whatever stories other people tell you count as "scientific evidence" and valid conclusions?

Look, my own experience is just proof to *me*... it’s not "science"... but it aligns perfectly with what tons of other people are reporting. To me, personally, it's 100% legit because their accounts match mine word for word. That's actually why I even started practicing this stuff—because just reading the theory wasn't cutting it for me.

And if we're talking actual science (and I’ve told you this three times now), drawing a conclusion based on patterns—like looking at groups of people who practice Kundalini Yoga—and seeing similar symptoms across those samples... that's standard scientific procedure. Following that logic, the conclusion ends up being pretty damn accurate.

Here's a textbook example: take 3,000 sick patients and split them into three groups of 1,000. Give one group a placebo, another Drug X, and a third Drug Y, then compare the results... you'll get a pretty solid conclusion about how effective Drug X or Y really is compared to the placebo (natural recovery).

And again, if that isn't enough for you, there are concrete measurements taken by experts in their respective fields. Coming from an electrical engineering background, I know which studies exist. Now, I don't know if biology can precisely measure dopamine levels... though practice shows that dopamine spikes in practitioners, and those effects can be neutralized by blocking dopamine receptors (using antipsychotics)... whether you can pinpoint the exact dopamine level through measurement, I honestly don't know...
neonmarlin39 said:I see you're still sticking to your guns with that style of yours... Have you actually gone down the rabbit hole and checked out his other threads? Some of them are even more unhinged than this one.

Check this out:

Look, you're really not reading what I wrote that closely. I didn't even mention anything about him being unstable because of those reasons or because he was messing around with psychedelics. Not once.

Man, you’re still out here trying to psychoanalyze everyone else in the thread. Seriously, how many posts is this now? And honestly, how many more of these are you planning to drop on us?

Like I already told you, doing that is clearly against the forum rules. Besides, you aren't even that good at analyzing stuff, and honestly, I don't care for your little pseudo-psychology sessions, whether they're aimed at me or anyone else.

Dude, seriously...

😁

I wasn't even talking about you specifically. You're always busy with your little psychoanalysis anyway—I can't even remember which post it was...

That they're swimming in dogma and don't have a logical or critical bone in their bodies.

Honestly, these little psychoanalysis attempts you throw at everyone else aren't actual discussions. It’s hard to take you seriously when you're constantly trying to play therapist instead of just talking.

Look, we’re talking about Eastern practices here. I specifically started diving into the dangers of rising Kundalini... and I brought plenty of solid arguments and evidence to the table... but you just brushed off everyone's personal accounts (including mine), which is ridiculous. I already told you that those testimonials hold weight—you look at a specific sample size and the frequency of certain symptoms, and you get perfectly valid conclusions. In fact, I thought it would be enough if I just laid out my own direct results from practicing, since I have zero reason to lie about it anyway.

But whatever, you rejected those too, along with everyone else's stories... fine by me... we can stick strictly to the "science" then... leave all the metaphysics out of it.

I even laid out a theory based on electrical principles and pointed to existing research and measurements that prove the actual physical effects on practitioners... so, game over. Especially since you're playing the skeptic, yet I answered you using nothing but pure science...

If you actually have something useful to say about it, feel free to jump in.
Zachary Cox69 said:Look, we all believe in free will. Even God respects that freedom—He doesn't force us to believe in Him.

“Only those who find it in their interest that God does not exist fail to believe.”
(Francis Bacon)

I get what you're getting at regarding free will—it’s basically that whole moral pillar of Catholicism they drill into you either at home or in Sunday school... but... if you look at the Bible, every single non-believer gets condemned. So, God gives you the freedom to choose, sure, but then He punishes you for making the wrong call...

Zachary Cox69 said:Look, we all believe in free will. Even God respects that freedom—He doesn't force us to believe in Him.

“Only those who find it in their interest that God does not exist fail to believe.”
(Francis Bacon)

It’s like they’re hunting for proof of God—but they're only looking through one tiny little lens, totally ignoring every other angle...

The concept of God is way beyond anything we can actually wrap our heads around—so honestly, respecting God is really just about respecting existence itself...
Paul Rogers94 said:By the way, Joan Rivers, Ph.D. serves as the spiritual director for Yoga Journal (Yoga Alliance).

It was the exact same deal with that whole "kundalini yoga" thing and the "kundalini symptom" nonsense...

...everyone's just confused about what they're actually talking about, so there's really no point in getting worked up over it...
neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...

So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...
neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?

Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?

I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?

And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...

neonmarlin39 said:I think I made my point pretty clear, including the fact that basically zero traditional, classic schools of yoga ever used those specific terms or names (and yeah, I mentioned Sivananda might have used it once or twice, but not in this context). Most of this is just New Age terminology at best, or just modern fluff. And don't even get me started on people rambling about Kundalini awakening practices when they haven't even mastered basic breathing or controlling their own minds. I asked you for the name of your "instructor's" school so we could figure out what's actually going on here...

So that makes you rude, insulting, and attacking other people?

We already talked about how flawed it is to interpret your own experiences without guidance—like how every Tom, Dick, and Harry tries to decode their visions based on some random dream a grandma had. There's way too much nonsense, dogma, and bad logic floating around, and we aren't here to validate that stuff. It’s the exact same deal with things like UFO sightings.

And there you go again, trying to pseudo-psychoanalyze everyone else. Maybe check the forum rules.

Yeah, it shows. Honestly, I still can't quite wrap my head around what you're actually trying to preach to me here...

Look, skepticism isn't inherently a bad thing. You kind of missed the forest for the trees, though—the real issue is that it's impossible to have a serious, deep conversation with certain people. Instead of using actual arguments or evidence, they just resort to psychoanalyzing you or throwing insults. Some of these folks act like they're enlightened masters, but honestly, by any standard, they're just dogmatic believers. There's definitely a handful of them on this forum—not everyone is like that, thankfully. Most people here are cool to talk to and can actually hold a decent debate. But if some people don't know the basics of how to have a constructive discussion, that's not on me. At the end of the day, they aren't looking for truth or solid logic; they're just clinging to their dogmas. The second you challenge those beliefs, they get super emotional. It's classic...

Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...

Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.

And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?

Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.
Zachary Cox69 said:Just some thoughts. Even prayer fits here. Prayer doesn't always need words—you can just direct your thoughts toward God and speak through your mind without saying a thing. Or you could read a passage from the Bible and really chew on it—thinking about what it’s telling me right now. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is our teacher, so we should expect Him to enlighten our minds to help us interpret things we don't quite get—at least sometimes. Gospel of Luke

"Luke said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: everything must be fulfilled that was written about me in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms.'
Luke 24:45 [B]Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.[/B]

This is pretty interesting—this priest really took this concept to heart.

"Once someone has truly spoken with God, they stop doubting His existence. Beyond that, the act of communicating with Him changes you."
Tomislav Ivančić on how to communicate with God

The process:

Find a spot where nobody or nothing will bother you for the next twenty minutes or so. Sit or kneel down, take one deep breath, and let it out slowly. Just stay relaxed and calm.

After that, go to those people you're having tension with and make peace—at least in your head for now. Forgive them, and ask for forgiveness too.

Text continues below the ad

Then, just realize that God is right there, in front of you. You can hear Him and talk to Him through your spirit.

Say, "You are here, God. And so am I. I want to talk with You." Just stay in that peace, letting your heart wait and long to meet with God.

Ask God to prepare you for this conversation. Be persistent in your prayer every single day. You will encounter God. God is an absolute, perfect Spirit. During creation, He breathed His own Spirit into man. As Christians, we receive new strength through the sacraments via God's Spirit. This means a person can communicate with God through their spirit, aided by the Holy Spirit. Just as we communicate with people through touch, sight, or hearing, we can talk to God through the spirit.

To enter into a dialogue with God, you have to center yourself. While physical communication is direct and outward—making it easier for us to notice—spiritual communication is much finer and more delicate. It requires peace, sensitivity, relaxation, and a pure heart. It demands that a person opens up from within, turning themselves entirely into a listener. It’s a lot like when someone is deep in thought or searching for inspiration for an art project. It's deep listening. That's how you can speak to God. But more importantly, it's about listening to Him. A clear conscience is the prerequisite for inner peace, which leads to outer focus.

So, you can hear God and talk to Him. The very certainty that God exists comes from this communication. Once someone has talked with God, they no longer doubt His presence. Even more so, this connection changes a person so deeply that they begin to perform wonderful works of God. Those acts serve as confirmation of His presence. A believer is essentially someone who talks with God. That is what prayer is.

Father Tomislav Ivančić



Essentially, Christian meditation is always directed toward God, the Creator of the world.

You know what the best part is about everything he finally wrote...

It basically nuked the whole middleman concept—completely stripped away the priest's role as some kind of gatekeeper... you know, that monopoly on God that every single religion tries to claim for themselves.

So, based on what’s written here—your relationship with God is actually personal... you don't need to go trampling into some church or bowing down to authority figures just to make it happen...

Sweet
And on top of all that, he was deep into measuring brainwave frequencies in meditators—basically looking at how to trigger those shifts down into the subconscious waves
The whole concept of potential exchange is briefly touched upon in the Emerald Tablet by Hermes Trismegistos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Tablet
Other Hermetic texts attributed to him are packed with wisdom too—stuff like "opomena duh" and the "Corpus Hermeticum" are actually pretty solid reads...

If you want an example of a spot where this exchange activity hits a higher gear, look at
the Oneness temple (Ekam) in India—it was built right on top of natural lines that boost electrical conductivity (basically a "telluric grid"). Plus, the place has been a magnet for meditators for ages because of the beneficial ionization from mountain streams... kind of like how lighting a candle creates a tiny bit of artificial ionization, but on a much larger scale...

These are what Dr. Ljubisa Stojanovic—rest his soul, peace be upon him—called "power spots"😉
wearyowl29 said:Spirituality is something naturally implanted within you, whereas organized religion is mostly just a shortcut for people who don't want to do the heavy lifting of thinking for themselves when they're alone with their thoughts.

Seneca didn't live in a world of monotheism, and Bacon wouldn't have fully grasped the modern concept of individual freedom to choose—or reject—one's own faith.

Look, spirituality is just as natural as that gut feeling that we're all disconnected from our original source (God). Organized religions just take advantage of that spiritual hunger and that nagging human hunch that a higher power exists... they offer some kind of filler for that emptiness people feel deep down.

So, "re-" meaning again and "ligare" meaning to bind together = religion. Makes sense, right?

That’s why nobody ever attacks someone else's religion—because that connection is primal, and for some folks, their faith is sacred...

It’s that whole "love your own" thing (whether that's atheism or some other faith)
and "respect the others" (whatever else that may be)...

The real question is whether spirituality puts us at risk—NO.

But does religion put us at risk? Potentially, YES—mostly because it's run by shady people looking out for their own interests.

And a scientist, being the curious soul they are, will obviously study everything including religion... but whatever conclusion they reach won't actually be a product of their intellect—it'll just be a result of how hard they're trying to fill that void in their soul.
neonmarlin39 said:Do I still have the right to laugh at stuff like "Kundalini yoga" and all that nonsense when it shows up in certain contexts? 😁 If those tiny little setbacks are enough to throw you off, I guess we can both agree that you’re way too easy to discourage.

I’ve always been all about having an actual, reasoned debate—you know, the kind where people actually listen and build on each other's points instead of just shouting into the void. Based on the arguments...Honestly, posts like this—especially when you start pivoting to other people or diving into that pseudo-psychoanalysis stuff to take shots at others—are just a necessary evil. If people actually had a basic level of culture and just stuck to some fundamental forum etiquette, we wouldn't even be dealing with this kind of nonsense. But hey, I guess expecting that is basically asking for a utopia. Realistically? Only losers start drama like this.

Get your hormones under control. Or don't—but if you choose to ignore it, don't come crying to me when everything hits the fan. It’s simple math. Buddha once said that holding onto anger is like grabbing a handful of hot coals just to throw them at someone else; you're definitely going to burn your own hands first. And honestly? There's a pretty good chance the other person is just gonna duck. 😁

Here we go again with the wild guesses. Honestly, you just can't face the fact that you don't actually have anything to back your claims up. It’s always the same pattern with you—whenever things get real, you just resort to personal insults or suggest people need therapy. Like, seriously? Just grow up a little and try being a decent human being. Instead of burning all your time and energy cranking out thousands of these petty posts, maybe try actually making a point for once. You’d find it a whole lot more productive, trust me.

And what are you even mocking me for, seriously? It’s just the topic at hand—the actual differences between Hindu practices and those Christian-style meditation routines. I mean, if someone drops "Kundalini yoga" in a conversation, do you really act like you have zero clue what they're talking about?...
Look, I’m really not interested in getting dragged into those low-level chess matches where everyone just tries to trash-talk or one-up each other...
And if I tell you I actually tried some Kundalini techniques and even described what happened next—it’s still going to hit that same wall of skepticism... because apparently, you somehow know what started happening to me after those practices better than I do myself... boo.

It’s not that I’m feeling discouraged or anything—I’m just straight-up disappointed by how closed-minded everyone is on this subforum... especially when the whole thing is literally called "spirituality."

neonmarlin39 said:Do I still have the right to laugh at stuff like "Kundalini yoga" and all that nonsense when it shows up in certain contexts? 😁 If those tiny little setbacks are enough to throw you off, I guess we can both agree that you’re way too easy to discourage.

I’ve always been all about having an actual, reasoned debate—you know, the kind where people actually listen and build on each other's points instead of just shouting into the void. Based on the arguments...Honestly, posts like this—especially when you start pivoting to other people or diving into that pseudo-psychoanalysis stuff to take shots at others—are just a necessary evil. If people actually had a basic level of culture and just stuck to some fundamental forum etiquette, we wouldn't even be dealing with this kind of nonsense. But hey, I guess expecting that is basically asking for a utopia. Realistically? Only losers start drama like this.

Get your hormones under control. Or don't—but if you choose to ignore it, don't come crying to me when everything hits the fan. It’s simple math. Buddha once said that holding onto anger is like grabbing a handful of hot coals just to throw them at someone else; you're definitely going to burn your own hands first. And honestly? There's a pretty good chance the other person is just gonna duck. 😁

Here we go again with the wild guesses. Honestly, you just can't face the fact that you don't actually have anything to back your claims up. It’s always the same pattern with you—whenever things get real, you just resort to personal insults or suggest people need therapy. Like, seriously? Just grow up a little and try being a decent human being. Instead of burning all your time and energy cranking out thousands of these petty posts, maybe try actually making a point for once. You’d find it a whole lot more productive, trust me.

Look, I laid out the facts regarding Kundalini rising and pointed to the massive amount of firsthand accounts from people who have actually lived through it... but you just had to compare them to UFO sightings like they’re some fringe conspiracy theory. It's the same old move—just another way to dismiss what all these people are experiencing. I even gave you my own personal experience—since I'm the only one who knows the truth of what happened to me—and yet you're still sitting there claiming it isn't "proof." So, what's the deal? Not even millions of people is enough for you? You've managed to brush off my own testimony, too... which, let's be real, is something only I can verify. Even the gurus themselves talk about the symptoms and go out of their way to warn about the dangers... so this isn't some fairy tale, it's... Just a fact...And that’s basically the whole point of this debate—if you aren't coming at this with an open mind and you're just acting like a total skeptic, nobody is ever going to prove anything to you... because, honestly, you just won't let them...

Look, even within the realm of science, that’s a solid proof... I mean, Freud followed those exact same paths when he was developing psychoanalysis. You just take a massive sample size of people—assuming they aren't lying about the whole thing, obviously—and there you go. That's your proof right there, whether it actually exists or not...

neonmarlin39 said:Do I still have the right to laugh at stuff like "Kundalini yoga" and all that nonsense when it shows up in certain contexts? 😁 If those tiny little setbacks are enough to throw you off, I guess we can both agree that you’re way too easy to discourage.

I’ve always been all about having an actual, reasoned debate—you know, the kind where people actually listen and build on each other's points instead of just shouting into the void. Based on the arguments...Honestly, posts like this—especially when you start pivoting to other people or diving into that pseudo-psychoanalysis stuff to take shots at others—are just a necessary evil. If people actually had a basic level of culture and just stuck to some fundamental forum etiquette, we wouldn't even be dealing with this kind of nonsense. But hey, I guess expecting that is basically asking for a utopia. Realistically? Only losers start drama like this.

Get your hormones under control. Or don't—but if you choose to ignore it, don't come crying to me when everything hits the fan. It’s simple math. Buddha once said that holding onto anger is like grabbing a handful of hot coals just to throw them at someone else; you're definitely going to burn your own hands first. And honestly? There's a pretty good chance the other person is just gonna duck. 😁

Here we go again with the wild guesses. Honestly, you just can't face the fact that you don't actually have anything to back your claims up. It’s always the same pattern with you—whenever things get real, you just resort to personal insults or suggest people need therapy. Like, seriously? Just grow up a little and try being a decent human being. Instead of burning all your time and energy cranking out thousands of these petty posts, maybe try actually making a point for once. You’d find it a whole lot more productive, trust me.

Basic etiquette involves not being a jerk... for instance, I’ll give you an example from this thread. I mention a friend from New York who happens to be a yoga instructor... then in your next post, you write allegedly my friend... so yeah, you’re doing that subtle little thing where you try to undermine people while acting all innocent.
It’s the same deal with mocking quotes... get it? Just get it...

neonmarlin39 said:Do I still have the right to laugh at stuff like "Kundalini yoga" and all that nonsense when it shows up in certain contexts? 😁 If those tiny little setbacks are enough to throw you off, I guess we can both agree that you’re way too easy to discourage.

I’ve always been all about having an actual, reasoned debate—you know, the kind where people actually listen and build on each other's points instead of just shouting into the void. Based on the arguments...Honestly, posts like this—especially when you start pivoting to other people or diving into that pseudo-psychoanalysis stuff to take shots at others—are just a necessary evil. If people actually had a basic level of culture and just stuck to some fundamental forum etiquette, we wouldn't even be dealing with this kind of nonsense. But hey, I guess expecting that is basically asking for a utopia. Realistically? Only losers start drama like this.

Get your hormones under control. Or don't—but if you choose to ignore it, don't come crying to me when everything hits the fan. It’s simple math. Buddha once said that holding onto anger is like grabbing a handful of hot coals just to throw them at someone else; you're definitely going to burn your own hands first. And honestly? There's a pretty good chance the other person is just gonna duck. 😁

Here we go again with the wild guesses. Honestly, you just can't face the fact that you don't actually have anything to back your claims up. It’s always the same pattern with you—whenever things get real, you just resort to personal insults or suggest people need therapy. Like, seriously? Just grow up a little and try being a decent human being. Instead of burning all your time and energy cranking out thousands of these petty posts, maybe try actually making a point for once. You’d find it a whole lot more productive, trust me.

You’ve got your own way of being passive-aggressive in gloves—staying defensive during a debate because that’s just how you feed. I’ve seen it in real life too; it’s hard for you to lose that condescending edge when that's just your whole vibe... sounds like something a politician would say, honestly.

Look, I'm going to lay this out objectively so you can't pull any context out of thin air. First, certain exercises cause actual chemical shifts (check that online, I'm not trying to misquote science here)

From the angle I get—the electrical side—first, regarding yoga: the spine is basically a direct extension of the brain through the spinal cord, and stretching it improves electrical conductivity. And the chemical changes are obvious, though I won't dive into that unless you want me to tear this post apart looking for errors since it's not my primary field.

Second, regarding Kundalini: the spine acts like a piezoelectric material. In short, when a material is under tension (like the vibration/stretching found in mantras), it generates extra electricity. Even our bones are piezoelectric... raising Kundalini triggers increased electrical activity in the brain (there are actually EEG studies on this).
The brain puts out about 20W of power, which depends on voltage and current. Any increase in those two components boosts the overall power. When you apply that to biological matter—which isn't exactly a 20W tungsten lightbulb—even a tiny electrical boost is noticeable. That's the current component...

Then there's the voltage component (potential difference), which is present in all visualization exercises. It’s the equivalent of calling upon the Holy Spirit or visualizing the crown chakra or the Kether from Kabbalistic theory. Whether that’s "objective" depends entirely on whether you believe in manipulating electricity. But the practice provides its own evidence...

And keep in mind, Kundalini is often interpreted as an energy that isn't strictly defined, so there's definitely a current component involved, as I explained. I could go on about the rest, but honestly, I don't have the energy...

You can look up what I wrote online, and if you want to mock it like you have before, go ahead... to you, it's just a fictional concept and it'll stay that way (regardless of the evidence or testimonies, mine or anyone else's... nothing is going to change your skeptical stance because you simply aren't interested)

As a spirituality subforum, we should actually be discussing these concepts and influences—like the effects of raising Kundalini—from both a scientific perspective and an experiential one (which is almost quasi-scientific). Because of all this skepticism and the sheer number of "spiritualists" with zero substance, this forum feels hauntingly empty.
neonmarlin39 said:Is it just me, or are you being way too sensitive about this? Like, seriously, you're acting like a total snowflake over something that's basically nothing. 🤣 Is it really that big of a deal? Honestly, not my problem, so feel free to just keep those opinions to yourself. I’m really not interested.

Honestly, it’s just because they don't have any actual arguments. No substance, no cultural awareness, and zero mental discipline to back it up.

Look, if you want respect, you gotta earn it. It’s that simple. It's not rocket science. Same goes for defending yourself—if someone comes at you with a knife, you've got every right to fight back. There's no sin in protecting yourself when things get physical. And seriously, go back and actually read his post again. It was a direct response to my last one. Are you blind, or just trolling me?

Check the explanation above. It’s pretty obvious you’re one of those people who needs everything drawn out in crayon for you. And yeah, sure, I guess I did pivot into analyzing the guy—but only after he hit a perfect 10/10 on the scale of being rude, ignorant, and just plain uncultured. He made it crystal clear that he wasn't interested in having a real, constructive conversation anyway. Honestly, are you two dating or something? Because the way you're blindly defending him is getting a little weird.

Nah, your issue is that you’re trying to mock people—and my issue is that I’m just sharing stuff from my own life and letting you think it's okay to make fun of me. As for what counts as "constructive debate"... honestly, I have no clue what exactly you find constructive about being a jerk...
That’s exactly why nobody wants to stick their neck out anymore—nobody wants to be the one to decide where we land. So fine, let’s all just put on our political gloves and play it safe like the career politicians do... and see where that gets us. Nowhere...

neonmarlin39 said:Is it just me, or are you being way too sensitive about this? Like, seriously, you're acting like a total snowflake over something that's basically nothing. 🤣 Is it really that big of a deal? Honestly, not my problem, so feel free to just keep those opinions to yourself. I’m really not interested.

Honestly, it’s just because they don't have any actual arguments. No substance, no cultural awareness, and zero mental discipline to back it up.

Look, if you want respect, you gotta earn it. It’s that simple. It's not rocket science. Same goes for defending yourself—if someone comes at you with a knife, you've got every right to fight back. There's no sin in protecting yourself when things get physical. And seriously, go back and actually read his post again. It was a direct response to my last one. Are you blind, or just trolling me?

Check the explanation above. It’s pretty obvious you’re one of those people who needs everything drawn out in crayon for you. And yeah, sure, I guess I did pivot into analyzing the guy—but only after he hit a perfect 10/10 on the scale of being rude, ignorant, and just plain uncultured. He made it crystal clear that he wasn't interested in having a real, constructive conversation anyway. Honestly, are you two dating or something? Because the way you're blindly defending him is getting a little weird.

I’ve been following this thread from the jump, so I totally get why he finally lost his cool at the end—he basically went off the rails, and honestly, you were just the cherry on top of that whole mess...

neonmarlin39 said:Is it just me, or are you being way too sensitive about this? Like, seriously, you're acting like a total snowflake over something that's basically nothing. 🤣 Is it really that big of a deal? Honestly, not my problem, so feel free to just keep those opinions to yourself. I’m really not interested.

Honestly, it’s just because they don't have any actual arguments. No substance, no cultural awareness, and zero mental discipline to back it up.

Look, if you want respect, you gotta earn it. It’s that simple. It's not rocket science. Same goes for defending yourself—if someone comes at you with a knife, you've got every right to fight back. There's no sin in protecting yourself when things get physical. And seriously, go back and actually read his post again. It was a direct response to my last one. Are you blind, or just trolling me?

Check the explanation above. It’s pretty obvious you’re one of those people who needs everything drawn out in crayon for you. And yeah, sure, I guess I did pivot into analyzing the guy—but only after he hit a perfect 10/10 on the scale of being rude, ignorant, and just plain uncultured. He made it crystal clear that he wasn't interested in having a real, constructive conversation anyway. Honestly, are you two dating or something? Because the way you're blindly defending him is getting a little weird.

Man, you really saved the best comments for last...

neonmarlin39 said:Is it just me, or are you being way too sensitive about this? Like, seriously, you're acting like a total snowflake over something that's basically nothing. 🤣 Is it really that big of a deal? Honestly, not my problem, so feel free to just keep those opinions to yourself. I’m really not interested.

Honestly, it’s just because they don't have any actual arguments. No substance, no cultural awareness, and zero mental discipline to back it up.

Look, if you want respect, you gotta earn it. It’s that simple. It's not rocket science. Same goes for defending yourself—if someone comes at you with a knife, you've got every right to fight back. There's no sin in protecting yourself when things get physical. And seriously, go back and actually read his post again. It was a direct response to my last one. Are you blind, or just trolling me?

Check the explanation above. It’s pretty obvious you’re one of those people who needs everything drawn out in crayon for you. And yeah, sure, I guess I did pivot into analyzing the guy—but only after he hit a perfect 10/10 on the scale of being rude, ignorant, and just plain uncultured. He made it crystal clear that he wasn't interested in having a real, constructive conversation anyway. Honestly, are you two dating or something? Because the way you're blindly defending him is getting a little weird.

Just looking at this from my own perspective—I totally get why he reacted that way, and honestly, I see why you’re piling it on now too...

Look, that’s just how you play it—if you walk into a "constructive debate" by mocking everything I say from the jump, or if you throw in a few cheap shots every couple of replies... well, it’s gonna end up looking like a provocation. Pretty soon, the whole thing just hits a wall and turns into a total outburst...