web analytics

Today he died for us

By Patrick Van Roy On April 19th, 2019

For over 2000 years we remember this day. The day he gave his life for our souls. He suffered so that we may not.

 

Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomini Tuo Da Glorium. 

100 Responses to “Today he died for us”

  1. He died on Friday and rose on Sunday. He gave up his weekend for our souls.

  2. lmao very good Paul

  3. Pat, if there is a God, and I hope there is, I’d like to think that he / she /it had a sense of humour.

  4. //He suffered so that we may not.//

    Well, that bit at least didn’t seem to work out. People have suffered a lot over the past 2000 years.

    Religion can alleviate certain suffering, but it also causes suffering.

    I’d say probably only science on balance prevents more suffering than it causes.

  5. Paul God is a Comedian playing to an audience that’s afraid to laugh……

  6. and of course if you want to make God laugh…. tell him your plans.

  7. Pat, if there is a God, and I hope there is

    Why would anyone hope for that? Given the Holocaust and all that. The good news is that there is zero evidence of a sky-god, nilch, nada, zip. And let’s be grateful for that.

  8. Ok guys, here is the best Good Friday music ever written:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM_-X7tN300

  9. Because most people would like to think there’s something after this life Peter.

    The good news is that there is zero evidence of a sky-god, nilch, nada, zip.

    I agree. That’s why I said I hope there is as opposed to I know / believe there is.

  10. Peter

    “The good news is that there is zero evidence of a sky-god, nilch, nada, zip.” That is the whole point of faith. Do you have any understanding of supernatural belief? If not, you are poorly educated.

  11. Which one New Yorker?

    Hinduism? Buddhism? Zeus? Apollo? Santa Clause? Easter Bunny?

    Can you think of anything worse than an eternity of worshiping?

    And can anyone explain to me why an omnipotent god HAD to suffer for us? This literally makes ZERO sense. Zero.

  12. Peter: “The good news is that there is zero evidence of a sky-god, nilch, nada, zip.”

    The evidence is actually right in front of you. But since you choose not to see what is in front of your eyes, that’s your affair.

  13. smcgiff: “Which one New Yorker? Hinduism? Buddhism? Zeus? Apollo? Santa Clause? Easter Bunny?”

    You are clearly Islamophobic, Leaving the one true religion of peace out of your list is clearly a microaggression betraying a deep seated Islamophobia.

  14. smcgiff: “And can anyone explain to me why an omnipotent god HAD to suffer for us?”

    Didn’t have to, chose to.

  15. ‘Didn’t have to, chose to.’

    Into S&M?

    Good for him, but no need for a cult to build up around that.

    I left out other supernatural predilections also. 🙂

  16. smcgiff: “I left out other supernatural predilections also. ”

    I know you did, you Islamophobic hater.

    smcgiff: “Into S&M?”

    By your yardstick a fireman who dies in a burning building attempting to save a family from being burnt to death is ‘into S&M’.

    What a twisted moral perspective. I’m sorry for you.

  17. ‘I’m sorry for you.’

    Says he who needs to get his moral compass handed down by backward desert dwellers.

  18. ‘I’m sorry for you.’

    Says he who needs to get his moral compass handed down by backward desert dwellers.

  19. ‘By your yardstick a fireman who dies in a burning building attempting to save a family from being burnt to death is ‘into S&M’.’

    Firemen aren’t omnipotent, so real heros. Penny dropping yet?

  20. ‘By your yardstick a fireman who dies in a burning building attempting to save a family from being burnt to death is ‘into S&M’.’

    Firemen aren’t omnipotent, so real heros. Penny dropping yet?

  21. smcgiff: “Penny dropping yet?”

    analogy noun
    anal·​o·​gy | \ ə-ˈna-lə-jē \
    plural analogies
    Definition of analogy
    1a : a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
    b : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY

    Comprehension, a difficult thing to achieve. But keep trying.

    This trading insults is fun.

  22. smcgiff: “Says he who needs to get his moral compass handed down by backward desert dwellers.”

    I’m not sure who you are referring to, the followers of Allah, or the followers of Yahweh, but in either case you are just reinforcing your antisemitic credentials.

    Keep babbling Anti Semite.

  23. //Definition of analogy//

    The analogy was fundamentally wrong. If your firemen were able to put out the fire without entering the building, without even leaving the comfort of their homes, how many of them would choose to put themselves in danger, and even get killed, just for the sake of it?

    You are trying to put logic on something that always escapes it.
    Try simple faith instead (like, I think, NY does above, if I understand him correctly)

  24. Peter,

    Why would anyone hope for that?

    Indeed. A lot of people seem to really like the idea of heaven, but I’m not so sure.
    It would be great to see loved ones again after you die, but I’m sure the novelty of an eternity with them will soon wear off. What am I going to do in heaven for eternity, wont I get really bored?
    Mind you, as an atheist I’m not sure I’m going to heaven so….

    if we’re going down the spiritual road, I much prefer the idea of some form of reincarnation. Coming back as different life forms for all eternity sounds far more interesting. And that seems to be the game everything else in the universe plays.

    Anyway, have a great Easter everyone whatever you believe.

  25. I believe in Cadbury’s crème eggs. There must be a God, only a deity could have created such a glorious delicacy 🙂

    Happy Easter everyone.

  26. Noel: “If your firemen were able to put out the fire without entering the building, without even leaving the comfort of their homes”

    If, if if.

    In my scenario, the fireman was entering the building to save lives, not to put out the fire.

    Surely it’s axiomatic a fireman can’t enter a burning building while sitting in his own house.

    Noel: “how many of them would choose to put themselves in danger, and even get killed, just for the sake of it?”

    I don’t know Noel, you’d have to ask a fireman.

    Noel: “The analogy was fundamentally wrong.”

    I disagree Noel. The analogy was entirely appropriate.

  27. Colm,

    I believe in Cadbury’s crème eggs. There must be a God,

    My mum always gets me and my brother an Easter egg. She said she’s got me a dime bar one this year, I’m looking forward to it. 😀
    It’s sort of a deal we have, for me not eating meat on a good Friday, bless her.

  28. Apl,

    You’re well able to type and use the opposable thumb. Well done on that. But, you’re attempt at argument only makes sense in your own head.

    Colm, you infidel, they are the worst possible egg. Over sugared Multi-coloured puke receptacles to be exact.

  29. Patrick – your heart (if not always your head) is in the right place. Happy Easter.

  30. Peter – you use sky god a lot in the very aggressive stype of many atheists at aNY mentire of faith. Are atheists such as yourself necessairly more sophisticated and intelligent than non antheists such as myself? Cause I don’t think there is evidence of that.

  31. “Style”

  32. Happy Easter Mahons

  33. Smcgiff

    I know they are exactly as you describe but I love them. I can’t however eat more than around eight in one go 😉

  34. Indeed. A lot of people seem to really like the idea of heaven, but I’m not so sure.

    Like Peter you seem to have immediately went for the Christian knee-jerk Dave.

    I said, ‘most people would like to think there’s something after this life Peter’ I didn’t necessarily mean heaven just something after this life, (although the 72 virgins does sound appealing 🙂 ). Like yourself I like the idea of reincarnation.

    I wouldn’t call myself an atheist as I simply don’t know and couldn’t definitively state either way. I will say that I experienced a paranormal experience once but am not sure if this is conclusive enough to convince me.

    On the subject of Easter eggs, you are all Godless heathens. Nothing can match the absolute ecstasy of a Galaxy chocolate egg.

  35. I am partial to a walnut whip 😉

  36. An easter egg is large and round, albeit irregular, with nice shiny stuff on the outside and with a large dark hole in the middle.

    As such it’s very like the universe, created by physical energy or by God, whatever your taste. And there are so many completely baffling mysteries in physics, from the almost infinitely small to the almost infinitely large, including those mysterious dark holes, that are, as the man said, “not just more complex than we imagine, but more complex than we can imagine”, that the only sensible option IMO is simply to keep an open mind, and stay questioning and hopeful that you’ll live long enough to see at least some of the puzzles solved.

    It’s even possible that the beginning of the universe involved something like the God that Christians and Muslims believe in. Highly unlikely, but still possible.

  37. Paul McMahon,

    Like Peter you seem to have immediately went for the Christian knee-jerk Dave.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this Paul. It certainly wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction from me. I was just discussing one of the most common beliefs, which is some form of heaven.

  38. Colm they now make the Cadbury Creme eggs in a small size and sell them in 12 packs….

    You can pop the whole egg in your mouth and just enjoy them melting. I’ve eaten 5 packs this week.

  39. Good post Noel.

  40. Patrick Van Roy,

    You can pop the whole egg in your mouth and just enjoy them melting. I’ve eaten 5 packs this week.

    That’s not blood running through your veins Patrick, that’s butter. 😀

  41. I want to live long enough to see a colony on the moon.

    Hey Noel did you ever notice that the Universal structure is the Atom ?

    Look at the atoms shape and design then the solar system then the galaxy they all have the exact same structure from the atomic to the galactic in scale.

    I’ve always loved that.

  42. Colm,

    I am partial to a walnut whip 😉

    Walnut isn’t the would to make whips from mate. Rosewood or Afromosia, is much more springy and durable. Don’t forget the ball gag.

  43. or pure sugar Dave…..

    Halloween and Easter I lovem both 😉

  44. Patrick Van Roy,

    Look at the atoms shape and design then the solar system then the galaxy they all have the exact same structure from the atomic to the galactic in scale.

    I’ve always loved that.

    I have to tell you this Patrick, but the way they show Atoms in text books is not what they actually look like.

    https://curiosity.com/topics/the-atom-diagram-isnt-what-an-atom-looks-like-curiosity/

  45. Patrick Van Roy.

    Halloween and Easter I lovem both 😉

    And Christmas is another great one for sweets. I have to not buy sweets, because I have absolutely no willpower when it comes to auger. I’ve got a terrible sweet tooth.

  46. good article Dave I’ll have to do some more reading…. always willing to learn.

  47. do you have any diabetic issues?

    I don’t but the wife does.

  48. smcgiff: “You’re well able to type and use the opposable thumb.”

    Just for fun, I tried to type using my thumb(s). Frankly it’s far too difficult, but I suppose it is one up the evolutionary ladder from banging your forehead against the keyboard.

    smcgiff: “Well done on that.”

    Thank you.

  49. Patrick Van Roy,
    /*do you have any diabetic issues?*/

    Thankfully no Patrick. I’ve had enough health issues recently to last a lifetime.
    I get regular blood tests and they haven’t found any problems, touch wood, except for some inflammation in my gut. They’ve put that down to stress.

  50. //I have to tell you this Patrick, but the way they show Atoms in text books is not what they actually look like. //

    Still, the Bohr diagram you see most frequently (which is what we learned at school and what I think Patrick was referring to) is good enough for normal understanding and as a logical model of the atomic structure. Electrons, notwithstanding their quantum jumping around and not knowing where they are or where they’re going, are still in all probability to be found at one of Bohr’s levels.
    For that matter, the solar system is also not as generally depicted. The orbital paths of the planets are elliptical, move at different speeds, have varying distances between them and are not on the same plane. It’s also not really true to say the moon orbits the earth. The two spin around each other like a (heavy) male and a lighter female ice-scater or dancers holding on to each other and leaning backwards as they spin around.

    //Hey Noel did you ever notice that the Universal structure is the Atom ?
    Look at the atoms shape and design then the solar system then the galaxy they all have the exact same structure from the atomic to the galactic in scale.//

    Patrick, you forgot between those extremes there’s also the nuclear family. Mother and father in the middle and children rushing around them and drawing energy, in the form of endless money, from the centre.
    At least I know that’s the way it’s going to be in Malta where we will be as of tomorrow.

    BTW, speaking of chocolates. Does anyone remember the Selection Box? Was that for Easter or Christmas? I can’t remember.

    Happy Easter everyone!

  51. Noel.

    I remember the selection boxes being a Christmas thing.
    When I was a kid at Christmas, I used to get enough of them to last me till Easter.

  52. I’m not sure what you mean by this Paul. It certainly wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction from me.

    Apologies if that came across arrogant Dave. It wasnt the tone it was meant in. When I spoke above about most people wanting to believe in something after life Peter immediately zeroed in on my ‘I hope there’s a ‘God’ remark as some kind of fundamental belief which wasn’t the case. I thought you were alluding to the same with your comment on ‘heaven’ I maybe got the wrong end of the stick. No biggiw mate.

    Maybe slightly political but it being the time of the year very appropriate for the Irish people here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe8zF_ZEAts

  53. Dave Alton

    “I have to tell you this Patrick, but the way they show Atoms in text books is not what they actually look like.” If you are an empiricist and believe knowledge is only gotten through the five senses, neither you or anyone has actually seen an atom.

  54. APL,

    Some of us can touch type and use a thumb for the space key. Didn’t think you’d believe in evolution. 😉

  55. APL,

    Some of us can touch type and use a thumb for the space key. Didn’t think you’d believe in evolution. 😉

  56. New Yorker

    /*
    If you are an empiricist and believe knowledge is only gotten through the five senses, neither you or anyone has actually seen an atom.
    */

    As far as I’m aware, knowledge can only be gained through the five senses. However, I certainly don’t know everything, and I’m sure there are other aspects to our consciousness and the universe that I am unaware of.
    Indeed. You can’t observe an atom because they are smaller than the photos that enter our eyes to give us vision. Although you can look at smaller things, using electrons.
    At scales as small as atoms and smaller, the whole concept of viewing things with your eyes, does not enter the equation. scientists use other methods to ascertain the structure of things at the atomic level and beyond.

  57. Dave Alton

    You cannot actually see an atom, you believe in its existence. Without actual knowledge you cannot prove the existence of atoms. Its existence is a matter of belief. It is similar to religious belief, believers cannot prove the existence of, say, god but they believe god exists, just as you believe atoms exist.

  58. HaHa New Yorker.

    Atoms have been observed, they’ve even been split and you’re possibly reading this on a device powered by that very process.

    If there was even a fraction of the evidence for God as there is for the atom there would be a lot less atheists.

  59. HaHa New Yorker.

    Atoms have been observed, they’ve even been split and you’re possibly reading this on a device powered by that very process.

    If there was even a fraction of the evidence for God as there is for the atom there would be a lot less atheists.

  60. New Yorker,
    //believers cannot prove the existence of, say, god but they believe god exists, just as you believe atoms exist.//
    I can’t see my heart New Yorker but I know it exists. There is mountains of evidence that atoms exist, even if you can’t see them, as such. We can split them, combine them, measure the effects of different experiments done on them. just because we don’t fully understand what atoms are, and can’t see them with our own eyes, doesn’t mean they don’t exist and we have to have faith in their existence.

  61. Atoms can be seen under very powerful microscopes. The suggestion that they are theoretical or a leap of faith is moronic.

  62. The existence of the Atom was proven at 5:29 a.m. on July 16, 1945.

    Selection boxes Noel…. We always called them Advent Boxes. Love them but it’s a christmas thing. And thank you for the family comment I can’t believe I missed that one.

    Happy Easter one and all.

  63. Dave Alton

    “I can’t see my heart New Yorker but I know it exists.” Correct. You do not know it exists through your senses, but through reason. That means we get knowledge in ways other than through our senses. And, that opens up a universe of possibilities.

  64. Seamus

    “Atoms can be seen under very powerful microscopes.” You could say the microscope is an extension of your eyes, but it is not your eyes, therefore you either believe (not know for certain) the microscope, or hold knowledge is gained by means in addition to the five senses. Which is it – religious like belief in a microscope or non-empirical knowledge?

  65. “You could say the microscope is an extension of your eyes, but it is not your eyes, therefore you either believe (not know for certain) the microscope, or hold knowledge is gained by means in addition to the five senses. Which is it – religious like belief in a microscope or non-empirical knowledge?”

    Are you going to tire of embarrassing yourself?

  66. You could say the same thing about anything. That book doesn’t really say that thing. It is just a religious like belief in the book that it says it. That painting doesn’t really show anything. It is just a religious like belief in the painting that has it.

    Utter and complete bollocks. Atoms exist. We can perceive them using microscopes. It takes a leap of faith to perceive God. It does not take a leap of faith to perceive atoms.

  67. New Yorker,
    //Correct. You do not know it exists through your senses, but through reason.
    //
    NO. That’s totally wrong.
    I watched the brilliant surgeon insert my pacemaker, in real time, on a CT scanner. It was scary and fascinating as he installed the leads of my pacemaker into my heart. FFS mate, I Don’t mind if you have faith in a deity, but don’t equate it to belief if God or atoms. Your argument is nonsensical.

  68. god and science are not separate. Science is the tool for us to scratch the surface of how he created everything and what we know so far is that we barely know anything.

    but we are learning, we are curious that is gods gift to us.

  69. Seamus

    If you think knowledge is only gotten through the five senses, you make a leap of faith in believing atoms exist. You did not see them with your eyes. As I said above, you could state that you think there are ways to gain knowledge in addition to through the five senses. But if you are an empiricist (knowledge only through senses) you do not have direct knowledge of atoms and take them on belief. I note you use the word “perceive” but how do you know your perceptions are accurate? Ever see what is perceived as a broken stick in water but in reality is not a broken stick?

  70. Dave Alton

    I also have watched procedures on a CT scanner. I knew I was not seeing it with my own eyes but I was looking at a monitor on the scanner. Of course, I believe and trust the scanner was reporting accurately, but nonetheless I did not see it directly but with the aid of the scanner. I believe we can know things by means in addition to our five senses. I believe what the scanner was showing me because I know something of the technology, I know the doctors, I know the institution where the scanning was done and judged it suficent knowledge to believe what the monitor was showing me. Perhaps you did similar.

  71. smcgiff

    “Are you going to tire of embarrassing yourself?” Explain that statement, if you can. I’ve noticed you are a ‘deep thinker’ so that should not be a problem for you.

  72. What’s that saying – Never argue with a certain person because they’ll only drag you down to their level? So, continue with the drivel New Yorker. It is fascinating to behold.

  73. What’s that saying – Never argue with a certain person because they’ll only drag you down to their level? So, continue with the drivel New Yorker. It is fascinating to behold.

  74. Cripes, just above I likened the universe to an egg, and now I read this

    https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/do-eggs-contain-the-secrets-of-the-universe/p076v5gf

    I always thought the egg was sadly neglected in religious iconography. We are born of eggs, then there’s the sacred mystery of the chicken and the egg, and the egg with its elliptical (or is it oval?) shape reflecting Einstein’s time warp and the shape of the universe itself……

    Maybe when Notre Dame is re-opened they might like to call it Notre Oeuf.

  75. Noel

    //then there’s the sacred mystery of the chicken and the egg,//

    What’s the mystery?

  76. New Yorker

    I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make mate.

  77. ” But if you are an empiricist (knowledge only through senses) you do not have direct knowledge of atoms and take them on belief.”

    Utter bollocks. You still see it. You still see it with your eyes. Yes your eyes are aided by a tool but that doesn’t mean that you didn’t see it.

    I wear glasses. Everything I see is aided by a tool. Does that mean I don’t see anything.

  78. Seamus

    In the case of atoms what your physical eye sees is the microscope. You believe what the microscope is showing you is true because you consciously or unconsciously have reasoned that it is a warranted belief. If you look into a microscope and ‘see’ atoms you are using non-sensory knowledge as well as knowledge from your physical eyes.

  79. Dave Alton

    I was just explaining what I think happens when I have a CT scan and watch it on a monitor. My point is that we use knowledge that is not from our senses in addition to what our senses report. Many people say that we can only know things through our five senses. I don’t think that is true based on an analysis of my experience.

  80. In the case of atoms what your physical eye sees is the microscope. You believe what the microscope is showing you is true because you consciously or unconsciously have reasoned that it is a warranted belief

    That’s like something straight out of the Aberdeen book.

  81. smcgiff

    Just admit you make stupid juvenile statements and when challenged are intellectually incapable of backing them up. That would be the honest thing to do, instead you continue to certify you are an intellectual midget.

  82. Comedy gold. Do you take this on tour?

    Now, if someone could explain why my posts are doubled, that’d be great.

  83. Comedy gold. Do you take this on tour?

    Now, if someone could explain why my posts are doubled, that’d be great.

  84. New Yorker,

    Do you do requests?

    Can you give us your take on evolution vis-a-vis the genesis creation story?

  85. “In the case of atoms what your physical eye sees is the microscope. You believe what the microscope is showing you is true because you consciously or unconsciously have reasoned that it is a warranted belief. If you look into a microscope and ‘see’ atoms you are using non-sensory knowledge as well as knowledge from your physical eyes.”

    A microscope simply magnifies what is already there. It doesn’t invent. It doesn’t make it up. It simply magnifies what is there enabling me to see it. Like my glasses. When I see the sun setting, or a tree, am I using non-sensory knowledge as well? Because if I take my glasses off I will struggle to see either.

    And of course the answer is no. My glasses, like a microscope, simply magnify things to enable my vision to see it. So my ability to see that tree is through my eyes. My ability (should I look through a powerful microscope) to see an atom is also through my eyes.

  86. New Yorker,

    I was just explaining what I think happens when I have a CT scan and watch it on a monitor. My point is that we use knowledge that is not from our senses in addition to what our senses report. Many people say that we can only know things through our five senses. I don’t think that is true based on an analysis of my experience.

    I might be being stupid here, but I still don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, when you say knowledge that is not from my senses.
    We use our five senses to acquire knowledge. I see no difference between using my eyes to acquire knowledge by say, looking at the structure of a flower, or using an electron microscope, (built using human knowledge obtained through the senses), to examine that flower in detail. The two things are exactly the same to me, it’s just that in the second case you’re using a highly advanced tool to learn more about the object in question. You’re not using knowledge that is not from your senses. You’re still using those sensors in exactly the same way.

  87. Seamus

    It is a subtle matter. You have not refuted my position but I fear you will never understand it.

  88. It is not subtle. You seem to be claiming that because we use tools to enhance the use of our senses that we are using non-sensory knowledge. It is bollocks. I understand what you are saying you pretentious wee fuck. And I’m calling it bollocks.

  89. Dave Alton

    You say the two things are exactly the same to me. They are not to me. I believe there are two different processes involved, one when I see a flower with my physical eye and another one when I look through a microscope. That difference is important, I believe, because it shows our minds are consciously or unconsciously making decisions on what we see. We don’t know exactly how that happens but it important to know that it takes place and to recognize it is non-physical. It appears seemless to us but there are actually fairly complex activities taking place in the mind that allows us to see the color or smell of a flower.

    Ultimately I’m pointing out that seeing an atom through a microscope, if you think about it, reveals we are using non-physical abilities we have because otherwise we would only see a microscope with our physical eyes and not an atom.

  90. Seamus

    “I understand what you are saying you pretentious wee fuck. And I’m calling it bollocks.” You demonstrable do not understand and your language belongs to a slumdog.

  91. “You demonstrable do not understand and your language belongs to a slumdog.”

    My language is completely appropriate. You must not understand it.

  92. Seamus

    “My language is completely appropriate. You must not understand it.” I fully understand it and have made a judgment on it which is expressed above. Those who get in over their head usually get drowned.

  93. “I fully understand it and have made a judgment on it which is expressed above.”

    You demonstrably do not understand it.

  94. New Yorker,

    When you’re typing on your keyboard do you believe you are seeing your words appear on screen or do you know you’re typing is appearing on screen because of Nuclear Fission (splitting of atoms) producing electricity/power to your home.

    Do let us know, maybe we’re all figments of your imagination !

  95. smcgiff

    I wish you were a figment of my imagination, alas your stupidity is all too real.

  96. My mistake, assumed you knew what Fission is.

  97. “Ultimately I’m pointing out that seeing an atom through a microscope, if you think about it, reveals we are using non-physical abilities we have because otherwise we would only see a microscope with our physical eyes and not an atom”

    Jesus wept.

  98. MourneReg

    “Jesus wept”. Please explain.

  99. New Yorker,

    //You say the two things are exactly the same to me. They are not to me. I believe there are two different processes involved, one when I see a flower with my physical eye and another one when I look through a microscope. //

    they are not two different processes, they are exactly the same except that you are using some form of machine to enhance your vision, or what you can see.

    //We don’t know exactly how that happens but it important to know that it takes place and to recognize it is non-physical. It appears seemless to us but there are actually fairly complex activities taking place in the mind that allows us to see the color or smell of a flower.//

    What do you mean it is not physical? Wheather we view things with our eyes directly or via a machine, it still physical. There is not some mysterious supernatural process taking place somewhere.

    //Ultimately I’m pointing out that seeing an atom through a microscope, if you think about it, reveals we are using non-physical abilities we have because otherwise we would only see a microscope with our physical eyes and not an atom//

    This statement just sounds like meaningless work salad to me.

  100. Dave Alton

    “Wheather we view things with our eyes directly or via a machine, it still physical.” I think we use our minds which are not physical in order to see anything. If you see a dog and then a wolf they can look almost the same. How do you know one is a dog and one a wolf if not by using your mind?

    Perception of anything is fairly complex and involves physical senses and the mind. That is all I am saying.