tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the problem isn't having to tell a duped child he's been deceived, but with deceiving him in the first place...
Are any of you here a Sensitive?
- Thread starter Canna Sylvan
- Start date
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
More babbling nonsense. Spirituality does not have one universal meaning, it is subjective based on who you talk to. Science is nothing more than a method of investigation. You believe things that are fantasy and made from assumptions that are there because you they appeal to you not because of careful thought. If careful thought was involved, you would say, "I don't understand how something can be this way, so I will reserve judgement." Speculation is one thing, calling a pure made up idea as a 'belief' is something altogether more sinister. Speculation about our origins are fine but to discount the enormous amount of evidence that we evolved from simpler species is really hard to overcome, especially since you have absolutely zero evidence to support your belief.
Intelligence is everywhere in the animal kingdom. Even prior to Darwin people understood and observed a hierarchy of intelligence with humans at the pinnacle but great apes not far below that, along with other mammals and interestingly many birds too. We see less intelligence in reptiles, amphibians and fish, even to the point where it's hard to even call it intelligence at all. You discount science, not because of lack of evidence but by your own lack of knowledge about the subject. If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind than you are being unreasonable and again, I cannot communicate sufficiently with someone as closed minded as you.
You make the same mistake about religion. There are countless religions and probably barely any of them have anything to do with 'people' from the sky. Worshiping the sun or giving god status to the stars and planets IMO, don't qualify for this 'universality' that you seem to believe is present in religion. What about religions where man was spat up from the earth or volcanoes or other beings? You must watch the History channel too much as your ideas about religion and aliens is quite skewed .
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Tyler,
I see you don't think an imagination is worth much. Shooting a whole in your cheek is worth it. Snaps you back to reality. What if I'm not real? I could be the most sophisticated bot you ever met. Would it matter? Or does that ruin the fantasy?
I see you don't think an imagination is worth much. Shooting a whole in your cheek is worth it. Snaps you back to reality. What if I'm not real? I could be the most sophisticated bot you ever met. Would it matter? Or does that ruin the fantasy?
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
I think imagination is very important, even in science. It is important to distinguish between imaginings and reality, as not all things imagined can actualize in objective reality. I think you meant hole in my cheek, but I still don't get the reference. I have determined that you pass the Turing test so far, but just barely...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't I make some mistakes if I wanted to fool you?The narrator(Edward Furlong)shot a (w)hole in his cheek in order to to get back his reality.But is part of your mouth gone worth it?Sometimes ignorance is bliss,especially awkening to fucking that thing
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Oh, Ed Norton in Fight Club, I get it. It was more out of of his neck than cheek, I guess it was worth it to get rid of the mischievous sociopath that took over his life (you met me at a very strange time in my life). Ignorance can be blissful and comforting, but some of us value reality over comfort. The bitterest truth is better than the sweetest lie...
ganja man23
Well-Known Member
More babbling nonsense. Spirituality does not have one universal meaning, it is subjective based on who you talk to. Science is nothing more than a method of investigation. You believe things that are fantasy and made from assumptions that are there because you they appeal to you not because of careful thought. If careful thought was involved, you would say, "I don't understand how something can be this way, so I will reserve judgement." Speculation is one thing, calling a pure made up idea as a 'belief' is something altogether more sinister. Speculation about our origins are fine but to discount the enormous amount of evidence that we evolved from simpler species is really hard to overcome, especially since you have absolutely zero evidence to support your belief.
You clearly have no idea what spirituality is. You are looking to religion for your answers when the reality is that what you're searching for is within you. Confused already? Reserving judgement is one thing and i don't pick on people for that. When you come along and argue that people are telling fairy tales, you come off as arrogant and even rude. There is not an enormous amount of evidence that we "evolved" from a similar species. We are merely left with the fact that we share about 99.8% of our genome with monkeys. Don't become so thick that you fail to see that I do believe we came from monkeys. The fact that we evolved in a different intelligence based on genes not found anywhere but within us, shows to me that our genetics were tampered with. Naturally it couldn't have been us so was it.... aliens?... (oooooh).
Intelligence is everywhere in the animal kingdom. Even prior to Darwin people understood and observed a hierarchy of intelligence with humans at the pinnacle but great apes not far below that, along with other mammals and interestingly many birds too. We see less intelligence in reptiles, amphibians and fish, even to the point where it's hard to even call it intelligence at all. You discount science, not because of lack of evidence but by your own lack of knowledge about the subject. If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind than you are being unreasonable and again, I cannot communicate sufficiently with someone as closed minded as you.
You have no idea who i am in real life. I disregard science? Why science has been the building block for most of my life. To make such a claim that i am closed minded is rather funny. If you knew me in real life you'd see just how closed minded i'm not. If intelligence is present in the animal kingdom than why don't we have any lions making cars? Why run after heienas when you can drive? Yes we can make speculations like the fact that fire may have led to intelligence but the core fact is that we can't prove that with our beloved science. We need history for that and science doesn't prove history no matter how much evidence. The fact of the matter is that darwinism says that the species that does not evolve simply dies off. So why have monkeys not died off if we are their successors?
The only way to prove history is for us to travel back in time. Science is merely the playing field we all watch in a stadium. Spirituality is more like the crowd and as you can already tell, many people become oblivious to the fact they're in the crowd because they become so caught up in the game.
You make the same mistake about religion. There are countless religions and probably barely any of them have anything to do with 'people' from the sky. Worshiping the sun or giving god status to the stars and planets IMO, don't qualify for this 'universality' that you seem to believe is present in religion. What about religions where man was spat up from the earth or volcanoes or other beings? You must watch the History channel too much as your ideas about religion and aliens is quite skewed .
And you listen to science so much you dedicate your life to disproving anything science doesn't agree with. You do realize that the scientific approach has failed before right? Look at the theory of the modern atom. It started out being a solid, then the next guy claimed all the electrons,neutrons and protons flowed freely within, than we discovered the electron orbitals, etc. My point is not to let science be your religion and believe everything scientists tell you. They're not some type of gods who can't be wrong, you'll find they speculate at times too much like they have with trying to discover our origins.
Now if you're curious for some more science, we have compared our genome with many other carbon based life forms from earth. dna is like a smooth transitional blueprint. we compare ours with our fellow monkeys and we found many genes that simply weren't found in any other life forms. It's position with respect to the surrounding amino acids were more or less abruptly placed and we still have no clue where these complex genes came from.
When you gather enough information you will see this more as a jigsaw puzzle. You know what information will not fit because the main structure of the puzzle is complete. But you can't see the full picture until all the pieces are in place. Keep in mind i'm merely using analogies for a lesser developed mind but theres nothing wrong with that litte buddy.
You clearly have no idea what spirituality is. You are looking to religion for your answers when the reality is that what you're searching for is within you. Confused already? Reserving judgement is one thing and i don't pick on people for that. When you come along and argue that people are telling fairy tales, you come off as arrogant and even rude. There is not an enormous amount of evidence that we "evolved" from a similar species. We are merely left with the fact that we share about 99.8% of our genome with monkeys. Don't become so thick that you fail to see that I do believe we came from monkeys. The fact that we evolved in a different intelligence based on genes not found anywhere but within us, shows to me that our genetics were tampered with. Naturally it couldn't have been us so was it.... aliens?... (oooooh).
Intelligence is everywhere in the animal kingdom. Even prior to Darwin people understood and observed a hierarchy of intelligence with humans at the pinnacle but great apes not far below that, along with other mammals and interestingly many birds too. We see less intelligence in reptiles, amphibians and fish, even to the point where it's hard to even call it intelligence at all. You discount science, not because of lack of evidence but by your own lack of knowledge about the subject. If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind than you are being unreasonable and again, I cannot communicate sufficiently with someone as closed minded as you.
You have no idea who i am in real life. I disregard science? Why science has been the building block for most of my life. To make such a claim that i am closed minded is rather funny. If you knew me in real life you'd see just how closed minded i'm not. If intelligence is present in the animal kingdom than why don't we have any lions making cars? Why run after heienas when you can drive? Yes we can make speculations like the fact that fire may have led to intelligence but the core fact is that we can't prove that with our beloved science. We need history for that and science doesn't prove history no matter how much evidence. The fact of the matter is that darwinism says that the species that does not evolve simply dies off. So why have monkeys not died off if we are their successors?
The only way to prove history is for us to travel back in time. Science is merely the playing field we all watch in a stadium. Spirituality is more like the crowd and as you can already tell, many people become oblivious to the fact they're in the crowd because they become so caught up in the game.
You make the same mistake about religion. There are countless religions and probably barely any of them have anything to do with 'people' from the sky. Worshiping the sun or giving god status to the stars and planets IMO, don't qualify for this 'universality' that you seem to believe is present in religion. What about religions where man was spat up from the earth or volcanoes or other beings? You must watch the History channel too much as your ideas about religion and aliens is quite skewed .
And you listen to science so much you dedicate your life to disproving anything science doesn't agree with. You do realize that the scientific approach has failed before right? Look at the theory of the modern atom. It started out being a solid, then the next guy claimed all the electrons,neutrons and protons flowed freely within, than we discovered the electron orbitals, etc. My point is not to let science be your religion and believe everything scientists tell you. They're not some type of gods who can't be wrong, you'll find they speculate at times too much like they have with trying to discover our origins.
Now if you're curious for some more science, we have compared our genome with many other carbon based life forms from earth. dna is like a smooth transitional blueprint. we compare ours with our fellow monkeys and we found many genes that simply weren't found in any other life forms. It's position with respect to the surrounding amino acids were more or less abruptly placed and we still have no clue where these complex genes came from.
When you gather enough information you will see this more as a jigsaw puzzle. You know what information will not fit because the main structure of the puzzle is complete. But you can't see the full picture until all the pieces are in place. Keep in mind i'm merely using analogies for a lesser developed mind but theres nothing wrong with that litte buddy.
ganja man23
Well-Known Member
But think of it this way; is there anything that is truly impossible in physicality? You will find that the only way to make something "impossible" is to limit the way in which it is conceived. No matter what level of imagination we can think of, can we not materialize it in some form in this "reality"? Let's pretend we want it to rain pink cats and purple dogs, strange i understand but stay with me. We can look at this approach in one of two ways; we want the clouds to instead of dropping water droplets to drop large cats and dogs instead which we know to be impossible in that sense. It's only impossible because we combine it with the natural limitation of cloud condensation. Now if we don't limit the result, than we could theoretically make anything we can think of possible except what has already happeed in the past. So i could get a large airplan, spray paint some cats and dogs and then throw them out. In that sense it would be raining.
I'm going to go one step further and try and dwell into the future. Can we not create some type of clouds that instead of being water based, they are carbon based instead. They will act similar to a "sky womb". the genetic structure of the cats and dogs will be conceived within the clouds and once they are mature, they will be dropped hence they are "naturally" raining. Tell me please if that doesn't make sense.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
The only thing we can be certain of... is our uncertainty Cheif. I can be 100% certain without a doubt that i do not know how to build a jet air liner from scratch, i do not know if god exists, i do not know what a bat tastes like.
Nice try though.
Ganja man, if you cannot accept the fact that your beliefs have the possibility of being wrong... there is not much more we can discuss, and i'm sure the Buddha would be disappointed.
ganja man23
Well-Known Member
I don't mean to claim my beliefs are right but I understand that you need to be imaginative to progress in any way. I definatley agree though, there is no certainty about anything. It seems as if you think you're much more qualified because you're more critical as what you choose to accept in your reality. You forget that I could be the exact same way and the truth is it doesn't make me any less qualified because I sense a certain level of spirituality that is unseen to our eyes. Don't forget that absolutely no human today was there at creation therefore every single idea presented is speculation no matter how much science there is behind it. Science is only to structure our physicality not our history.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
Science is the speculation of reality, it is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Religion/spirituality/theology is the speculation of nothing more than imagination.
One gives us knowledge, the other gives us ideas. Ideas that cannot stand up to the burden of proof will forever be put in the category of imagination until proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I think it's neat that you feel a presence, or a force, or something magical in your life. A lot of people do, in many different ways. But wouldn't you feel pretty silly if you found out that it was all in your mind? That it wasn't really, real. Just because i love knowledge and science doesn't mean that i do not feel just as much as any other feeling human being. Doesn't mean i don't sometimes just sit and cry because existence becomes too much for me sometimes.
I've got no problem with your beliefs bro, they seem very romantic and good natured. Just as long as you don't try to tell people they are true, we will all get along! I don't even care if YOU think they are true, just as long as you don't tell others that they are, because everyone with a basic understanding of reality will smirk and say bro... dude, you could be wrong you know that right?
It's ok to say i don't know, or I'm not sure, or i am not certain. It's also ok to think it's a cool idea that god exists, that you like that idea, it gives you peace of mind, a sense of comfort thinking that there is a force beyond you that is helping you, or guiding you in your life. Like i said before, millions do it in millions of different ways all based on personal preference.
But thinking and knowing are two very different things, and if we are to be completely honest with ourselves about what we know, we'll also have to admit to ourselves all of the things that we don't know... which can sometimes prove to be extremely difficult.
Everyone is required to give their life meaning and purpose, there are no exceptions... sometimes people just can't do it, so they let someone else do it for them, or even refuse to think about it. I base the purpose of my existence on honesty with myself, it fills me with so much love that it hurts if i do it any other way. A lot of people aren't like that, in fact a lot of people are exactly the opposite of that... but it's no worries, we are all different, and we all cope with existence in our own way. Just don't try telling other people that your idea's are the truth, when all of us will be able to call you out on your bluff... yet it is ok if you want to tell yourself that it's the truth, no one can stop you or say anything to the contrary.
Everyone on the planet is either trying to figure out what the fuck is going on, pretending that they already know, or just not giving a damn either way.
Religion/spirituality/theology is the speculation of nothing more than imagination.
One gives us knowledge, the other gives us ideas. Ideas that cannot stand up to the burden of proof will forever be put in the category of imagination until proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I think it's neat that you feel a presence, or a force, or something magical in your life. A lot of people do, in many different ways. But wouldn't you feel pretty silly if you found out that it was all in your mind? That it wasn't really, real. Just because i love knowledge and science doesn't mean that i do not feel just as much as any other feeling human being. Doesn't mean i don't sometimes just sit and cry because existence becomes too much for me sometimes.
I've got no problem with your beliefs bro, they seem very romantic and good natured. Just as long as you don't try to tell people they are true, we will all get along! I don't even care if YOU think they are true, just as long as you don't tell others that they are, because everyone with a basic understanding of reality will smirk and say bro... dude, you could be wrong you know that right?
It's ok to say i don't know, or I'm not sure, or i am not certain. It's also ok to think it's a cool idea that god exists, that you like that idea, it gives you peace of mind, a sense of comfort thinking that there is a force beyond you that is helping you, or guiding you in your life. Like i said before, millions do it in millions of different ways all based on personal preference.
But thinking and knowing are two very different things, and if we are to be completely honest with ourselves about what we know, we'll also have to admit to ourselves all of the things that we don't know... which can sometimes prove to be extremely difficult.
Everyone is required to give their life meaning and purpose, there are no exceptions... sometimes people just can't do it, so they let someone else do it for them, or even refuse to think about it. I base the purpose of my existence on honesty with myself, it fills me with so much love that it hurts if i do it any other way. A lot of people aren't like that, in fact a lot of people are exactly the opposite of that... but it's no worries, we are all different, and we all cope with existence in our own way. Just don't try telling other people that your idea's are the truth, when all of us will be able to call you out on your bluff... yet it is ok if you want to tell yourself that it's the truth, no one can stop you or say anything to the contrary.
Everyone on the planet is either trying to figure out what the fuck is going on, pretending that they already know, or just not giving a damn either way.
ganja man23
Well-Known Member
Well I can't disagree with anything you have said but instead of taking everything we say literally why not just realize that we are not scientists working on proving a hypothesis. We're more like a group of friends sharing ideas so why interpret everything like I'm some type of book preacher? It's almost as if you feel like its your obligation to disprove any hypothesis one makes for whatever reason. Like you said I choose my beliefs based on what I consider the most likely outcome but they are still beliefs meaning its not a certainty. So I nor anyone else has a certainty with respect to any belief except one; the fact that we exist right now. now I claim that we can generate a 2 dimensional reality within a computer so whose to say there isn't one inscribed within physicality. I have a strong belief (based upon many of what I call sub beliefs) that dimensions go beyond 3rd density. we share the knowledge that for many of us it is irrelevant because we won't see such a dimensional physicality in our life. Why would that stop us from speculating though? Many scientific breakthroughs were at one point mere speculations and they can't be discredited because science doesn't support them. It's up to the person who has the thought to choose the most likely belief because that's what's structures our ego. My belief is that success comes from a balance of speculation and observation.
Lets talk about god for a second. I have chosen the belief that we are at our core, eternal co creators.mbased off of one creation energy, so My spirit will live forever even when I die here. I remember you tellling me that You believe that science shows the mind is based soley on electric impulses and it finishes when we finish. So how has my belief shaped my life? The truth is that I live more freely now because I realize our abundance. It doesn't make me careless but I choose to accept that I am only here to pursuit excitement and joy. Should we not come upon the same conclusions from our completely different beliefs. At the end of the day we should simply embrace our time here because either way it's everything we have right "now". You go against the wave for everything though. You know the size of the universe and you know deep down that life is abundant all over the universe. It's a joke for there to be one planet harbouring life across 14.5 billion light years that's completely a belief of mine since I have no memory of meeting aliens.
Im going to try and give you a scenario: were going to build a tower ten times taller than the cn tower. First we must Engineer then execute. Many people will say such a thing is impossible because we don't have the technology, the abundance, the wealth, etc. would you rather work on creating the tower knowing that it may very well fail anywhere before you reach completion or would you rather be a spectator (an analogy for your interpretation of science science I don't thin you are a scientist as a profession) and wait till the engineers finish the tower to accept it. Yes there could be a lot of heartache if we fail but that's human ingenuity; if we fail at first we will find another way.
Lets talk about god for a second. I have chosen the belief that we are at our core, eternal co creators.mbased off of one creation energy, so My spirit will live forever even when I die here. I remember you tellling me that You believe that science shows the mind is based soley on electric impulses and it finishes when we finish. So how has my belief shaped my life? The truth is that I live more freely now because I realize our abundance. It doesn't make me careless but I choose to accept that I am only here to pursuit excitement and joy. Should we not come upon the same conclusions from our completely different beliefs. At the end of the day we should simply embrace our time here because either way it's everything we have right "now". You go against the wave for everything though. You know the size of the universe and you know deep down that life is abundant all over the universe. It's a joke for there to be one planet harbouring life across 14.5 billion light years that's completely a belief of mine since I have no memory of meeting aliens.
Im going to try and give you a scenario: were going to build a tower ten times taller than the cn tower. First we must Engineer then execute. Many people will say such a thing is impossible because we don't have the technology, the abundance, the wealth, etc. would you rather work on creating the tower knowing that it may very well fail anywhere before you reach completion or would you rather be a spectator (an analogy for your interpretation of science science I don't thin you are a scientist as a profession) and wait till the engineers finish the tower to accept it. Yes there could be a lot of heartache if we fail but that's human ingenuity; if we fail at first we will find another way.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
Like i said, i think it's neat that you feel that way. But just because we feel some way towards something, doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm not trying to disprove anyone's supernatural beliefs, i can't, it's impossible to disprove something that can't be proven either way. I am trying to help you realize that the supernatural beliefs you hold have the same possibility of being false, as they do of being true.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I know what most people consider spirituality. Spirituality however does not have a single definition. It encompasses a wide range of various metaphysical ideas, none of which can be demonstrated to be anything beyond a person's internal, subjective experience. So I would say I have a better grasp of spirituality than you do considering you believe it is a single, universally accepted 'thing.'
I'm not confused but you seem to be. I made no reference to religion and you continue to assume your personal idea of spirituality is somehow the only one and correct.
What do you call it when someone makes up a story that has fantastical, magical, elements that are completely contrary to what we know about reality? Myths and legends, whether they are ancient or contemporary ARE fairy tales. You may not like that designation but it is accurate. The Scientologists think we came from another planet on DC-8s brought here by Xenu and that these thetans are attached to our bodies. This too is a fairy tale.
It is annoying and sad that you think people that adhere to reality and consider wishful and magical thinking contradicting reality as we know it are somehow arrogant and rude. Yes, I am blunt but rarely rude until someone gives me reason, usually by ignoring the crux of an argument and attempting to silence the opposition by using personal attacks such as calling them rude and arrogant.
I beg to differ. The evidence is virtually undeniable by people that take the time to understand it.
Actually, we share less than that but the evidence is still overwhelming. It was quite convincing even before the advent of genetics but unlocking DNA actually gives us even more support. We come to the same conclusions when looking from the top down as we do from the bottom up. If the familial relationship wasn't real, we should have found some discrepancies by now that would make us question it, but the more we look, the stronger it becomes. So no, we are not merely left with this single fact. We have thousands of pieces of corroborating evidence from various scientific disciplines, with genetics being only one piece.
Show your work. First you must define intelligence since you seem to be using in an atypical manner. Then you need to show that our intelligence could not have evolved similarly to other traits. That our intelligence is somehow magical and the intelligence of whales or dogs is ordinary and can be explained by evolution.
I don't need to know who you are IRL. I only need to respond to what you write.
I did not say you ARE close minded, I said, " If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind..." then you are close minded. Your posts on this topic suggest that you are being close minded. You have eliminated the possibility that our intelligence is simply a by-product of a bigger and more complex brain, something that seems to be supported by the facts. As I said, you really don't seem to know or understand a lot about biological evolution if you can dismiss it so easily.
Really? That's your argument? Science has been the building block of your life but you can't understand why lions don't drive?
The more you post like this, the more I'm just going to assume you are scientifically illiterate, regardless of your claims to the contrary. If you seriously want answers to these things than I would be happy to provide you with them but to be honest, I think you are using these as rhetorical devises and you will readily discount any answer I provide. That you actually think that science tries to prove anything is your first mistake. Believing that we cannot make accurate conclusions about things in history unless we can actually observe them is an old creationist canard that is clearly untrue and if you knew and understood science as you claim, you should know that as well. It seems you believe that forensic investigation of a murder or arson is impossible since we cannot travel back in time to see it happen, right? I guess all of geology and our knowledge about the moving of continents d/t plate tectonics and anything we say about dinosaurs and other extinct species is all mere speculation too?
So yes, when I come to the conclusion you don't know and understand science, it is not based on any guess work about who you are or what you do but is 100% based on shit you say.
I spend time trying to dispel incorrect assumptions and beliefs about what science is and isn't. I try to educate people about what science can and cannot do.
Science is a methodology, not a collection of ideas. Science doesn't agree or disagree with anything. Science is a tool that can help me evaluate the relative worthiness of an idea and how much confidence I should have on any particular claim. If a claim is made that cannot be evaluated using science, then my confidence in the veracity of that idea is bound to be quite low. I don't however need to spend time disproving something that has no real support for it to begin with. This basic approach to epistemology is obviously lost on someone that can't understand the relevance of Russel's teapot.
Sorry, but I am not about to take a lesson about science from someone like you. You seem to be confused about what a scientific theory is and what it means to refine a working model. There are differences between speculation, hypothesis and theory. It is also important to comprehend that science also helps us understand the limitations of a theory. The thing about science is that it helps us know what we don't know.
link?
Cute. However, it would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't previously demonstrate your inadequate understanding of the scientific method. It's not arrogance to point out that I am quite a bit more knowledgeable than you on science and specifically genetics and evolution.
ganja man23
Well-Known Member
That just makes me think pseudoscience is based on tricking people for money. If you're not making money in this thread then you're here tricking others for your own pleasures. If you work in such a way you'd only be tricking yourself. Im curious if you even read that? Something only becomes pseudotific if you are enforcing your beliefs upon others without question. I think we're all here to absorb and share ideas from others so why not get as much insight as possible. You don't have to believe it. Realize that most aren't here to change your ways on life. Why would anyone give a shit at all what your personal beliefs are unless you confront them? Even though we may argue with each other I can tell the difference between a pseudo scientist and someone who tries to help me.
ganja man23
Well-Known Member
Perhaps i can break down everything youve writen but i wont for one reason, being that you show no more evidence other than your knowingness that you are much superiour to me in genetic studies. You cant use things you say in an attempt to disprove what i say as evidence. I only have one point and you've failed to grasp it IMO. Do you really think you've shown more concrete evidence than I have here? It's different that you may know more but I have yet to see it therefore don't believe it.I know what most people consider spirituality. Spirituality however does not have a single definition. It encompasses a wide range of various metaphysical ideas, none of which can be demonstrated to be anything beyond a person's internal, subjective experience. So I would say I have a better grasp of spirituality than you do considering you believe it is a single, universally accepted 'thing.'
I'm not confused but you seem to be. I made no reference to religion and you continue to assume your personal idea of spirituality is somehow the only one and correct.
What do you call it when someone makes up a story that has fantastical, magical, elements that are completely contrary to what we know about reality? Myths and legends, whether they are ancient or contemporary ARE fairy tales. You may not like that designation but it is accurate. The Scientologists think we came from another planet on DC-8s brought here by Xenu and that these thetans are attached to our bodies. This too is a fairy tale.
It is annoying and sad that you think people that adhere to reality and consider wishful and magical thinking contradicting reality as we know it are somehow arrogant and rude. Yes, I am blunt but rarely rude until someone gives me reason, usually by ignoring the crux of an argument and attempting to silence the opposition by using personal attacks such as calling them rude and arrogant.
I beg to differ. The evidence is virtually undeniable by people that take the time to understand it.
Actually, we share less than that but the evidence is still overwhelming. It was quite convincing even before the advent of genetics but unlocking DNA actually gives us even more support. We come to the same conclusions when looking from the top down as we do from the bottom up. If the familial relationship wasn't real, we should have found some discrepancies by now that would make us question it, but the more we look, the stronger it becomes. So no, we are not merely left with this single fact. We have thousands of pieces of corroborating evidence from various scientific disciplines, with genetics being only one piece.
Show your work. First you must define intelligence since you seem to be using in an atypical manner. Then you need to show that our intelligence could not have evolved similarly to other traits. That our intelligence is somehow magical and the intelligence of whales or dogs is ordinary and can be explained by evolution.
I don't need to know who you are IRL. I only need to respond to what you write.
I did not say you ARE close minded, I said, " If a careful study of evolution couldn't change your mind..." then you are close minded. Your posts on this topic suggest that you are being close minded. You have eliminated the possibility that our intelligence is simply a by-product of a bigger and more complex brain, something that seems to be supported by the facts. As I said, you really don't seem to know or understand a lot about biological evolution if you can dismiss it so easily.
Really? That's your argument? Science has been the building block of your life but you can't understand why lions don't drive?
The more you post like this, the more I'm just going to assume you are scientifically illiterate, regardless of your claims to the contrary. If you seriously want answers to these things than I would be happy to provide you with them but to be honest, I think you are using these as rhetorical devises and you will readily discount any answer I provide. That you actually think that science tries to prove anything is your first mistake. Believing that we cannot make accurate conclusions about things in history unless we can actually observe them is an old creationist canard that is clearly untrue and if you knew and understood science as you claim, you should know that as well. It seems you believe that forensic investigation of a murder or arson is impossible since we cannot travel back in time to see it happen, right? I guess all of geology and our knowledge about the moving of continents d/t plate tectonics and anything we say about dinosaurs and other extinct species is all mere speculation too?
So yes, when I come to the conclusion you don't know and understand science, it is not based on any guess work about who you are or what you do but is 100% based on shit you say. I spend time trying to dispel incorrect assumptions and beliefs about what science is and isn't. I try to educate people about what science can and cannot do.
Science is a methodology, not a collection of ideas. Science doesn't agree or disagree with anything. Science is a tool that can help me evaluate the relative worthiness of an idea and how much confidence I should have on any particular claim. If a claim is made that cannot be evaluated using science, then my confidence in the veracity of that idea is bound to be quite low. I don't however need to spend time disproving something that has no real support for it to begin with. This basic approach to epistemology is obviously lost on someone that can't understand the relevance of Russel's teapot.
Sorry, but I am not about to take a lesson about science from someone like you. You seem to be confused about what a scientific theory is and what it means to refine a working model. There are differences between speculation, hypothesis and theory. It is also important to comprehend that science also helps us understand the limitations of a theory. The thing about science is that it helps us know what we don't know.
link?
Cute. However, it would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't previously demonstrate your inadequate understanding of the scientific method. It's not arrogance to point out that I am quite a bit more knowledgeable than you on science and specifically genetics and evolution.
FYI I have chosen genetic engineering as my study in university and no I am not finished yet but to call me unqualified you would be wrong. Don't fail to realize that science has not proved everything about our origins. You seem to be under the impression that you have it all figured out which is what these guys are telling me about beliefs. Don't come upon the conclusion that we evolved 100% naturally until all the evidence is in place. If you're curious what I did, I merely took all my beliefs and tried to create my own theory and no offense it has less questions than your claim of natural evolution.
As for the lion thing: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
Whats the matter trying to disprove my beliefs based on an idea I wrote? Answer one question for me and provide me with all of your concrete scientific evidence and you'll be king. I want your proof to how we naturally developed intelligence to become as sophisticated as we are today.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/what-made-us-human-unique-evolution-gene-found-20121115-29d9p.html
Read the article, you will notice they come upon the conclusion that we have no idea how such a gene could arise so suddenly. That's where I would like to share my belief that we were tampered with. After that tampering we were left alone to develop. That's my idea. And I'd like to apologize if I offended you I really am learning but unfortunely I kind of learned more finding that link then I did from reading what you wrote. I'm just trying to be honest and in all honesty I don't think you should eliminate the possibility that our genetics were tampered with. Was I there watching this, no. Just keep the possibility running through your mind as nothing more than a thought for now.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The thing is, no matter how much evidence is provided, you will always be able to say "we don't have all the evidence". "All the evidence" is a never ending search, with more answers to questions, it only provides more questions to answer.
An example of this is the "no transitional fossil" fallacy. Pretend each letter represents an extinct animal. Fossil A, fossil B, fossil C, and fossil D...
A...B...C...D...
4 gaps
We find a transitional species between B and C, we'll call it b, now the sample looks like this;
A...B...b...C...D...
Now there are 5 gaps
The discovery of another animal caused more questions to be raised. "What does the animal between B and b look like?" "Was it water dwelling or did it live on the land?"...
You will always be able to say "there's not enough evidence" or "we don't have all the facts", but you fail to realize, the collection of facts we do have all add up to a scientifically sound theory of the overall process, with more species we discover, the theory gets stronger.
If you disagree with this, then the obvious question would be;
How much evidence would you require to believe it? Where would you draw the line between right now | and into believing it?
An example of this is the "no transitional fossil" fallacy. Pretend each letter represents an extinct animal. Fossil A, fossil B, fossil C, and fossil D...
A...B...C...D...
4 gaps
We find a transitional species between B and C, we'll call it b, now the sample looks like this;
A...B...b...C...D...
Now there are 5 gaps
The discovery of another animal caused more questions to be raised. "What does the animal between B and b look like?" "Was it water dwelling or did it live on the land?"...
You will always be able to say "there's not enough evidence" or "we don't have all the facts", but you fail to realize, the collection of facts we do have all add up to a scientifically sound theory of the overall process, with more species we discover, the theory gets stronger.
If you disagree with this, then the obvious question would be;
How much evidence would you require to believe it? Where would you draw the line between right now | and into believing it?
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Just like your belief that no one knows of if gods or souls exist, because you do not know that. Us believers are not here to recruit atheists into believing, we simply want to discuss with like minded people and share our similar ideas about reality. It is you who is trying to do some recruitment with your certainty of your belief, which is that no one knows if gods or souls exist, and every time those things are mentioned you spring into action and try to make them accept your belief. Its because you are under the delusion that you think your belief is fact, rather than an idea. Socrates said its impossible to know anything, yet he was almost certain he was arguing with a demon (daemon?) for 24 hours straight, what would you have to say to the father of your belief that believed in the supernatural? Even that miserable guy in your DP thought he knew, Z, he was certain there was no god.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
When it comes to imagination and our consciousness, I think The Stoned Ape Theory played a bigger role in it than alien intervention. Also, 70000 years ago we all of the sudden developed a much greater imagination capable of art, songs, story telling, and the realization of god, the best explanation for that is powerful psychedelics. Its funny that we know next to nothing about 'hallucinations' but we dismiss them as saying nothing about reality and has more to do with insanity. I do think aliens have helped us with our genetics though, the most recent addition is our blue eyes 10000 years ago.