Ayawasqero
Rising Star
Mr_DMT said:
Rather an i-D. E. A., :lol:... Got it, dude? Gosh, people here even don´t understand fun...
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
2012 debunked extensively
- Thread starter burnt
- Start date
Rather an i-D. E. A., :lol:... Got it, dude? Gosh, people here even don´t understand fun...
I don't want to argue anymore. Sorry to not respond to posts but I don't wanna get worked up again for no reason.
science is not a religion, ya, and if you cant see that difference, im very sorry. You are just taking an argument to the extreme and its losing its sense imo. Yes there are blind scientists just as there are blind carpinters or blind psychonauts, but this is very different than saying science or carpintery or psychonautics is blind (or a religion).
and I think you could reconsider your position saying people 'should' or 'shouldnt' do anything
personally, im tired of all this 2012 story. If something happens, happens, and if not, not.. What use is it to keep on repeating the same arguments over and over again? Seems like a big distraction from more pressing matters we could be discussing and thinking about, but thats just me.
and I think you could reconsider your position saying people 'should' or 'shouldnt' do anything
personally, im tired of all this 2012 story. If something happens, happens, and if not, not.. What use is it to keep on repeating the same arguments over and over again? Seems like a big distraction from more pressing matters we could be discussing and thinking about, but thats just me.
ya wrote:
maybe in an ideal world where no one dies so an individual is positioned to experience anything and everything...
However, as mortals in the world we live in it is grossly impractical, and debilitating, not to believe at least some of what others have written. What exactly is the point to reading if you believe nothing you read, Ya? Are you an advocate of illiteracy? Why are you reading these words? If there is no hope you might believe them, you are wasting your time.
the problem is that many believe all that is written. By virtue of its having been written. in print journalism, on the net, in books.
And THAT is as dangerous as believing nothing that is written.
JBArk
maybe in an ideal world where no one dies so an individual is positioned to experience anything and everything...
However, as mortals in the world we live in it is grossly impractical, and debilitating, not to believe at least some of what others have written. What exactly is the point to reading if you believe nothing you read, Ya? Are you an advocate of illiteracy? Why are you reading these words? If there is no hope you might believe them, you are wasting your time.
the problem is that many believe all that is written. By virtue of its having been written. in print journalism, on the net, in books.
And THAT is as dangerous as believing nothing that is written.
JBArk
psychology has shown over and over that personal experience can be mistaken. Optical illusions are a small but notable example. Creation of false memories is another. There are many other examples of how our perceptions and subjective experiences may fool us. Personal experience and personal belief is definitely not enough criteria for something to be considered truth. I do think, though, that for a broader truth, one should consider all sides critically, including his personal experience, published scientific reports, opinions of others, etc etc, giving each part its deserved value in the specific context and situation.
and no, sorry, your argument makes no sense about making the experiments yourself. Are you going to make the inspection on an airplane yourself before you fly, or are you gonna trust the engineers?
and no, sorry, your argument makes no sense about making the experiments yourself. Are you going to make the inspection on an airplane yourself before you fly, or are you gonna trust the engineers?
Im amazed! You really cant see the huge distinction between believing a bearded angry male in the sky sending lightning bolts to those that dont pray on sunday or giving up your house and quitting your job because you believe 2012 will enlighten all people, and trusting a peer-reviewed (meaning collectively examined by a group of certified experts on the subject) article on, say, the mechanics of an airplane?!
Rationalize all you want, ya, Im done with this conversation. Just know that equating those two things as if they are equivalent is VERY dangerous and can lead to disastrous consequences.
Ya said:jbark said:
The problem with the science-religion (yes, it needs to be said again) is that:
Many (like Burnt, yourself, and others) believe all that is published by peer-reviewed "trustable" sources.
What's hypocritical is that even though you haven't done the experiment yourself, you say "it's not a belief, it's a fact!"
Here you are believing others' words, just like those "religious believers" do, yet you don't admit you are doing the same.
So Burnt's point of this thread, "Believers are stupid" is totally hypocritical, since Burnt believes scientists' words.
It would be so much more rational if you admit, "I haven't done the experiments, I simply BELIEVE various scientists."
So instead of saying, "This airplane is safe." it is more rational to admit, "I BELIEVE the engineers who say it's safe."
I've said it before and ill say it again - i believe proof when it is sound. I believe (cause i am not equipped to do the experiments myself) a group of people who are trained to catch pretenders and have condoned the work of another, KNOWING that the work is not infallible and CAN be proved wrong. A belief, or a leap of faith, is not subject to infallibility.
i.e. you cannot DISPROVE the existence of god. So it is a belief. Science is built on disproving (wholly or partially) other's research. It discards faulty arguments and admits new ones. No belief system, or religion, does this. So to call science a religion is fundamentally erroneous. BTW, i am not saying he/she/it doesn't exist. Merely pointing out that, by strict definition, it will never be FACT.
Your example is faulty. No one engineer can guarantee all of what you assert. safety is not a fact. it is an opinion. A more correct analogy would be to assert that if all things function correctly, the plane WILL fly. And you can't really argue with that. And I have seen enough planes fly to trust this assertion, and don't need to verify every plane on the face of the earth. It is repeatable - another major part of the scientific method. beliefs are not founded on anything verifiable, repeatable or founded on anything subject to infallibility.
So saying god exists is no more provable, or disprovable (and thus just as admissible logically), than the assertions that blacks are inferior, that your soul exists and transmigrates, that jews were responsible for the decline of germany in the 20's and thus deserved to be gassed, and that stones are conscious, for that matter.
So while I generally respect peoples beliefs, I am no fool. They can be very dangerous. As of course, can the use of scientific discoveries. But the discoveries themselves are not dangerous, their applications are. Beliefs, I believe
can be dangerous in and of themselves:If everyone believed that nothing written was believable (or trustable - a better word) and refused to teach their children to read to spare them all the lies, what kind of a world would we live in?
Think before making radical assertions. That's not science, just common sense.
JBArk
Ya said:
Better does not equal practical or necessary - we live in the real world.
JBArk
P.S. for the rest, see my post above
BTW i am not a scientist, but a creative filmmaker who questions everything, but accepts what i cannot understand.
In the same way that scientific discoveries themselves are not dangerous, beliefs are not dangerous. It is only when beliefs lead to action that bad things can happen. A belief not acted on is as impotent as no belief at all.jbark said:
gibran2 said:
yes, a fine line. But belief systems are CREATED to lead to and encourage certain behaviour and action. The scientific method was created to examine these beliefs:
Beliefs run deep: what you believe affects where you are, who you are, where you go, what you eat, how you spend your time, who you love, who you hate, what you do to those you love and hate, what you teach your children (if only by example)... No scientific discovery or objectively observed phenomena (or its subjective interpretation thereof) leads to immediate change or action. Until it becomes belief. That's when science is dangerous: when those who espouse it forget that it is not a system of belief, but an instrument of logical proof and forget that it IS subject to fallibility.
Science is by nature humble: it admits its errors and builds other models. Religion is arrogant: it admits no errors and creates unproveable and unchallengeable propositions and stagnates in its own foetid mess.
To put it even more bluntly, science is an instrument of long-term profound change and progression by virtue of its tenets' disprove-ability and its admission of fallibilty, whereas religion is for short term immediate change and, frankly, the status quo - being institutions that are unwavering in their exclusion of new ideas and the notion of evolution and change.
The mechanisms are different in my opinion, but I understand your point.
I generalize here, but far less than the generalizations propounded by others above (and likely below. As above, so below - finally understood this aphorism!
)JBArk
Ya said:jbark said:
Since you are admitting that your beliefs are exactly that: beliefs, that's great.
I'm simply reminding the folks here who think that their "scientific" beliefs are FACTS.
Some of them ARE facts ya. the way facts are defined anyway. If not, you would have a different compound (or none at all, or an explosion, or you'd transmute into a lion....) every time you extracted from MHRB.
Surely you can see this? That MHRB contains DMT is a fact. And it is soluble in a non-polar solvent. That is a FACT. And is thus reliable and repeatable and scientific.
Why the derision for facts when you run your life by them?
Facts exist. denying this is insanity. And, I repeat - DANGEROUS.
JBArk
We agree entirely (on this point)! Finally!
i still maintain that beliefs that carry with them the humility to be proven wrong are more valid than those that rest on unprovable and un-disprovable dogma.
It is a theory, incidently, and no one claims it is fact. it is known as the copenhagen INTERPRETATION, not the copenhagen truth.
JBArk
EDIT: and you didn't answer my questions!
Citta
Skepdick
Ya said:
The thing is that these facts, or beliefs as you claim them to be, can easily be proven again and again by others. You have one individual observing a phenomenon, he tells his friend about it and his friend gets curious. His friend goes out there and does the same observation, and then he tells all his friends and they do the very same - they go out there and test it. And then we have lots of people out there that have done pretty much the same observations. And that's why we accept them, because we can go out there ourselves and test it. If you did go out there and test it for yourself and make the same observation, is it then a belief? I don't see where you're trying to get at with this.
Ya said:
so you accept nothing as fact that you haven't verified yourself?
ever been to africa? India? mexico? If not how do you know they exist? Is the existence of africa a fact only if you have been there? And only if you have scrutinized every square inch of the continent?
i both believe Africa exists and have enough surrounding evidence that i feel i can say with authority that it exists as a fact without having to visit ever corner and every square inch.
you can call it a belief, but then we get into that philosophical quagmire of not being able to assert the reality or the factual existence of anything, and we're back to square one.
I submit, for simplicity's sake, that we admit that everything is a belief by virtue of it being filtered from our senses through our CNS (a copout stance, but simple enough), and within this domain there is a subset called "facts" that we believe because we or others can attest to their veracity and have subjected them to rigorous proofs. A subset which is distinct from "belief as faith". Call it "belief as fact" if its easier.
cheers,
JBArk
Citta
Skepdick
Ya said:
But there is a fundemental difference. How can you not see that? Science and religion is NOT the same thing! Do I seriously have to go through this step by step? Science is biased on objective observations about natural phenomena in the material universe, how can this be anything close to religion as you seem to propose it is? Religion isn't even concerned about answering stuff like this. Would you ask a scientist or a religious man the following questions: "Why is there volcanic eruptions?". Or perhaps "What is the genetic code?", or "What basic elements is life composed of?" etc. And beliefs are not the same as facts for christ sakes..
Ya said:
so you accept nothing as fact that you haven't verified yourself?
ever been to africa? India? mexico? If not how do you know they exist? Is the existence of africa a fact only if you have been there? And only if you have scrutinized every square inch of the continent?
i both believe Africa exists and have enough surrounding evidence that i feel i can say with authority that it exists as a fact without having to visit ever corner and every square inch.
you can call it a belief, but then we get into that philosophical quagmire of not being able to assert the reality or the factual existence of anything, and we're back to square one.
I submit, for simplicity's sake, that we admit that everything is a belief by virtue of it being filtered from our senses through our CNS (a copout stance, perhaps, but simple enough), and within this domain there is a subset called "facts" that we believe because we or others can attest to their veracity and have subjected them to rigorous proofs. A subset which is distinct from "belief as faith", which is basically everything else, from inspiring spiritual experiences to crackpot end of the world theories.
Call it "belief as fact" if its easier.
cheers,
JBArk
burnt said:
Fair enough, but please consider this...
If there is no reason, then why do you get worked up at all?
If discussing things which include ideas that are outside your reality tunnel is upsetting your inner balance, and causing you distress, ask yourself why this is so. Because it has nothing to do with anyone else, it only has to do with you.
If your need to be right is so strong that you lash out in anger toward others who do not believe as you do, then this is providing you an excellent opportunity for personal growth. If your need to be right is stronger than your desire for the truth, then you will never find that which you seek.
jbark said:
What about Buddhist beliefs? They are founded on verifiable, repeeatable experiences. They have been reproduced by tens of thousands of not far far more individuals over thousands of years. They are subject to infallability, but just as much so as an equal number scientists coming to the same conclusion about an experiement.
jbark said:
Yes, but that is a belief SYSTEM, which is not the same as a belief. As said, beliefs in themselves are value neutral, it is when the get acted upon, or organized where they attain the value of "good" or "bad".