Forums > Social Discussion > Atheist advertising on London buses FTW!
Login/Join to ParticipateInternet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
Just caught this on the news.
Awesome
Thoughts?
Just caught this on the news.
Awesome
Thoughts?
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Sorry if I was a bit unclear- my comment about dogs was just to indicate how much species can change in a remarkably short space of time (I know they're all classed as the same species, and size permitting, can interbreed)..Yes, I know this was due to human intervention- but it does show how much change is possible, if circumstances permit- a change as big could happen in the wild if the right kind of environmental change occurred. Generally though, environmental constants (the need to find food, the need to avoid being food, the need to attract a mate) tend to stop sudden dramatic changes- it's only when you see what happens when those pressures are removed that you can see how much potential there is for variation. Darwin actually got a lot of his ideas from studying varieties of pigeons, then working out why, if 'freaks' like that were so common, you very rarely saw any wild ones.. then working out why there were any, if they all seemed doomed..
I don't get what you mean about the Peppered moth 'relying on mass' Meanie- the only reason we tend to see more change in a small species is because they tend to have a much faster reproductive cycle- not because of their mass. Obviously something like an elephant which can take 20 years to get through a generation is not going to change dramatically in 20 years, whereas something which can have several generations a year will be able to change a lot more in that time.. so we're more likely to notice and record it. Large animals can change impressively as well, I do remember being shown a photo of a whale with a leg, tucked under one flipper..
The definition of a species is sort.. evolving...anyway; it used to be 'could breed and produce fertile offspring', then species were found which are visibly different, are found in the same area, and never interbreed in the wild, but will do so, and have fertile offspring that breed true in a lab situation (a pair of Heliconia butterflies, if you want to look it up).. and some experts have started to claim hybridization has been going on a lot more than anyone ever thought possible, and possibly led to the Cambrian Explosion (a sudden massive jump in species numbers in the fossil record) so we all could be decended from something which- according to classic evolutionary theory- shouldn't be able to breed. Frankly the whole concept of a species is going through a bit of a rethink- out labels don't always fit reality..
Anyone who thinks science has all the answers (yet) doesn't know all the questions
But at least, unlike religion, science encourages people to ask them.
Sorry if I was a bit unclear- my comment about dogs was just to indicate how much species can change in a remarkably short space of time (I know they're all classed as the same species, and size permitting, can interbreed)..Yes, I know this was due to human intervention- but it does show how much change is possible, if circumstances permit- a change as big could happen in the wild if the right kind of environmental change occurred. Generally though, environmental constants (the need to find food, the need to avoid being food, the need to attract a mate) tend to stop sudden dramatic changes- it's only when you see what happens when those pressures are removed that you can see how much potential there is for variation. Darwin actually got a lot of his ideas from studying varieties of pigeons, then working out why, if 'freaks' like that were so common, you very rarely saw any wild ones.. then working out why there were any, if they all seemed doomed..
I don't get what you mean about the Peppered moth 'relying on mass' Meanie- the only reason we tend to see more change in a small species is because they tend to have a much faster reproductive cycle- not because of their mass. Obviously something like an elephant which can take 20 years to get through a generation is not going to change dramatically in 20 years, whereas something which can have several generations a year will be able to change a lot more in that time.. so we're more likely to notice and record it. Large animals can change impressively as well, I do remember being shown a photo of a whale with a leg, tucked under one flipper..
The definition of a species is sort.. evolving...anyway; it used to be 'could breed and produce fertile offspring', then species were found which are visibly different, are found in the same area, and never interbreed in the wild, but will do so, and have fertile offspring that breed true in a lab situation (a pair of Heliconia butterflies, if you want to look it up).. and some experts have started to claim hybridization has been going on a lot more than anyone ever thought possible, and possibly led to the Cambrian Explosion (a sudden massive jump in species numbers in the fossil record) so we all could be decended from something which- according to classic evolutionary theory- shouldn't be able to breed. Frankly the whole concept of a species is going through a bit of a rethink- out labels don't always fit reality..
Anyone who thinks science has all the answers (yet) doesn't know all the questions
But at least, unlike religion, science encourages people to ask them. THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Originally Posted By: astonAnd string theory? A mathematically elegant cul de sac. Until it can be experimentally verified, it is not worth the reams of paper it is on. Same with the Higgs. (If they do not find it, or understand of matter and how it is made will have to be rethought from the ground up. At least that is how I understand it.)
They wer just examples of directions that people are looking for 'before the beginning' theories. As I said I am not convinced but interested none the less.
Originally Posted By: astonRegarding evolution, my only real issue with it is what causes greater complexity? Beyond that, I prefer evolution as a theory.
Again - if you havent already I'd suggest reading The Ancestors Tale (Richard Dawkins). Its one of the most amazing descriptions of evolution I've ever come across. When I'm feeling a little less tired (its 1:30am here) I'll post up a bit more detail.
...I'm convinced anyway.
Originally Posted By: astonID is lampooned quite well by the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.
I'm wondering if the recent resurgence in high sea piracy is going to lead to a drop in global temperature? If so that will prove the FSM exists.
May all be touched by his noodly appendage.
Ramen.
Originally Posted By: astonAnd string theory? A mathematically elegant cul de sac. Until it can be experimentally verified, it is not worth the reams of paper it is on. Same with the Higgs. (If they do not find it, or understand of matter and how it is made will have to be rethought from the ground up. At least that is how I understand it.)
They wer just examples of directions that people are looking for 'before the beginning' theories. As I said I am not convinced but interested none the less.
Originally Posted By: astonRegarding evolution, my only real issue with it is what causes greater complexity? Beyond that, I prefer evolution as a theory.
Again - if you havent already I'd suggest reading The Ancestors Tale (Richard Dawkins). Its one of the most amazing descriptions of evolution I've ever come across. When I'm feeling a little less tired (its 1:30am here) I'll post up a bit more detail.
...I'm convinced anyway.
Originally Posted By: astonID is lampooned quite well by the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.
I'm wondering if the recent resurgence in high sea piracy is going to lead to a drop in global temperature? If so that will prove the FSM exists.
May all be touched by his noodly appendage.
Ramen.
Snowplow
18 posts
18 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Stout
is really genesis vs abiogenesis ( God made life vs life just happened )
and this bit
Quote:how living creatures function in their environment.
is biology.
All these arguments boil down to presenting evidence, as to which theory is "more" valid. Problem is, ToE is still evolving as new discoveries are made while ID just pulls things out of it's arse and is mainly trying to raise enough doubt as to the validity of the ToE, opening the door for a stronger existence of God argument.
It's really atheism vs theism, both vying for the minds of the agnostics.
I am sure you are right about your statements. But you are talking about the public discussion. Think about it. We are being trapped with 2 choices. How can we say with certainty that humans didn't originate somewhere else? They found microbial life on the spaceshuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere. Why is it considered weird if you think about that possibility?
I am not saying this is the case, but a lot of people have excluded this possibility, because that impossible according to most scientists. History teaches us, that a lot of the times people had strange or controversial thoughts, they turned out to be right.
It is atheism versus theism. But why does being an atheist exclude believing in something else? I am most definitely an atheist. But I don't exclude that there is a lot that we don't know. Just think about the fact visible light is only maximum 3% of all light. The only thing I want in life is the truth about everything. And excluding possibilities is not the same as chasing the truth. Instead it has become a battle between theism and atheism, and not a scientific one.
It is the same story with a lot of sciences. There are so many dogma's in science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=channel&v=wSk3OIrhDfA
EDITED_BY: Meanie (1227320910)
Originally Posted By: Stout
is really genesis vs abiogenesis ( God made life vs life just happened )
and this bit
Quote:how living creatures function in their environment.
is biology.
All these arguments boil down to presenting evidence, as to which theory is "more" valid. Problem is, ToE is still evolving as new discoveries are made while ID just pulls things out of it's arse and is mainly trying to raise enough doubt as to the validity of the ToE, opening the door for a stronger existence of God argument.
It's really atheism vs theism, both vying for the minds of the agnostics.
I am sure you are right about your statements. But you are talking about the public discussion. Think about it. We are being trapped with 2 choices. How can we say with certainty that humans didn't originate somewhere else? They found microbial life on the spaceshuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere. Why is it considered weird if you think about that possibility?
I am not saying this is the case, but a lot of people have excluded this possibility, because that impossible according to most scientists. History teaches us, that a lot of the times people had strange or controversial thoughts, they turned out to be right.
It is atheism versus theism. But why does being an atheist exclude believing in something else? I am most definitely an atheist. But I don't exclude that there is a lot that we don't know. Just think about the fact visible light is only maximum 3% of all light. The only thing I want in life is the truth about everything. And excluding possibilities is not the same as chasing the truth. Instead it has become a battle between theism and atheism, and not a scientific one.
It is the same story with a lot of sciences. There are so many dogma's in science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=channel&v=wSk3OIrhDfA
EDITED_BY: Meanie (1227320910)
Fire + Idiot * wind - brains = Oops²
Snowplow
18 posts
18 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Mascotdo atheists need to proslyetize?
I used to think not, I used to think it brought us down to their level. Their mad ideas needed to be pushed onto people to survive, atheism doesn't need that it can stand on it's own merits. I hate being preached at, and thought we atheists above such things. I was wrong. There's a battle of ideas going on and pacifism is not a winning strategy. A more atheist world is not inevitable, there has been a religous upsurge, in much of the world intolerance is on the rise. Religous wars and persecution are alive and well. Atheists should spread their views, it's not a religous commandment of course, but it's the right thing to do.
Here's to a more rational world
I think that phenomenon has some other reasons. But they are mostly political.
I agree there is a lot of madness going around. A lot of people are powerless to do anything about their situation and turn to religion. That part has nothing to do with organized religion having any merit.
What I do agree on is the fact some people are waking up somewhat and turn to more ancient forms of religion, or alternative ideas about spirituality. If you ask a lot of atheists. You will probably find a lot of people like that.
EDITED_BY: Meanie (1227321544)
Originally Posted By: Mascotdo atheists need to proslyetize?
I used to think not, I used to think it brought us down to their level. Their mad ideas needed to be pushed onto people to survive, atheism doesn't need that it can stand on it's own merits. I hate being preached at, and thought we atheists above such things. I was wrong. There's a battle of ideas going on and pacifism is not a winning strategy. A more atheist world is not inevitable, there has been a religous upsurge, in much of the world intolerance is on the rise. Religous wars and persecution are alive and well. Atheists should spread their views, it's not a religous commandment of course, but it's the right thing to do.
Here's to a more rational world
I think that phenomenon has some other reasons. But they are mostly political.
I agree there is a lot of madness going around. A lot of people are powerless to do anything about their situation and turn to religion. That part has nothing to do with organized religion having any merit.
What I do agree on is the fact some people are waking up somewhat and turn to more ancient forms of religion, or alternative ideas about spirituality. If you ask a lot of atheists. You will probably find a lot of people like that.
EDITED_BY: Meanie (1227321544)
Fire + Idiot * wind - brains = Oops²
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Well, we're not really being trapped with two choices, panspermia is clearly within the scientific viewpoint, while the ID camp is trying to discredit as being bad science.
The problem is panspermia is possible but is far less probable than abiogenesis on earth. Then there's the misunderstandings, about life being found on the space shuttle, and inside comets.
If the panspermia people can come up with some good evidence, then the scientific critics will gladly revisit the idea.
Well, we're not really being trapped with two choices, panspermia is clearly within the scientific viewpoint, while the ID camp is trying to discredit as being bad science.
The problem is panspermia is possible but is far less probable than abiogenesis on earth. Then there's the misunderstandings, about life being found on the space shuttle, and inside comets.
If the panspermia people can come up with some good evidence, then the scientific critics will gladly revisit the idea.
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MeanieI am sure you are right about your statements. But you are talking about the public discussion. Think about it. We are being trapped with 2 choices. How can we say with certainty that humans didn't originate somewhere else? They found microbial life on the spaceshuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere. Why is it considered weird if you think about that possibility?
All this does is put the problem somewhere else.
If it didnt happen on earth it still had to happen somewhere.
Originally Posted By: MeanieI am sure you are right about your statements. But you are talking about the public discussion. Think about it. We are being trapped with 2 choices. How can we say with certainty that humans didn't originate somewhere else? They found microbial life on the spaceshuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere. Why is it considered weird if you think about that possibility?
All this does is put the problem somewhere else.
If it didnt happen on earth it still had to happen somewhere.
Snowplow
18 posts
18 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: SeyeOriginally Posted By: MeanieI am sure you are right about your statements. But you are talking about the public discussion. Think about it. We are being trapped with 2 choices. How can we say with certainty that humans didn't originate somewhere else? They found microbial life on the spaceshuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere. Why is it considered weird if you think about that possibility?
All this does is put the problem somewhere else.
If it didnt happen on earth it still had to happen somewhere.
Well, that would be a completely different case than the one you advocated before.
Instead of intelligent life being a couple of hundred thousand years old, it could very well be millions or more.
We tend to ignore the writings of ancients, even though they are in many cases very similar. I recently started researching more on this, and I found Michael Tsarion a very interesting person, because he links a huge amount of information together. Now I don't know what to believe, as he is making some outrageous claims, but he is certainly not alone in this. I am not advocating his view, but I am advocating everyone should watch it!
I personally don't believe the whole 2012 thing, so don't pin me down on that.
Originally Posted By: SeyeOriginally Posted By: MeanieI am sure you are right about your statements. But you are talking about the public discussion. Think about it. We are being trapped with 2 choices. How can we say with certainty that humans didn't originate somewhere else? They found microbial life on the spaceshuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere. Why is it considered weird if you think about that possibility?
All this does is put the problem somewhere else.
If it didnt happen on earth it still had to happen somewhere.
Well, that would be a completely different case than the one you advocated before
.Instead of intelligent life being a couple of hundred thousand years old, it could very well be millions or more.
We tend to ignore the writings of ancients, even though they are in many cases very similar. I recently started researching more on this, and I found Michael Tsarion a very interesting person, because he links a huge amount of information together. Now I don't know what to believe, as he is making some outrageous claims, but he is certainly not alone in this. I am not advocating his view, but I am advocating everyone should watch it
!I personally don't believe the whole 2012 thing, so don't pin me down on that
. Fire + Idiot * wind - brains = Oops²
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Hi Meanie.
Did you read my post above, the one where I mentioned misunderstandings about microbes being found on comets and the space shuttle ?
Did you do any research on panspermia ? Do you see how it fits into the ToE and isn't really a "third" choice.
Do you see how the statement
Quote: They found microbial life on the space shuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere.
is just plain wrong....as in factually incorrect.
We don't KNOW life is out there, everywhere, we just think there might be, at least the people who know what they're talking about do.
You might want to cast a wary in Lyndon LaRouche's direction
And Michael Tsarion . yes, sure, I'd call him "interesting" ( on a good day ) but he's part conspiracy theory, and part made up stories all wrapped up in a clever package designed first to "blow your mind" then "blow your budget" No, he's not alone, there's tons of people just willing to gobble up what he's selling so they too, can be wrong.
Re the Mayans, If they were so smart, how then, did they fail to predict their own extinction, and when they finally realised they had a problem, why did they only respond by increasing their rate of war and ritual sacrifice ? "Hey !! we're all dieing out, let's have more wars...yays" .......oops.
Next...fun with Zeitgeist addendum and the Venus Project.
Hi Meanie.
Did you read my post above, the one where I mentioned misunderstandings about microbes being found on comets and the space shuttle ?
Did you do any research on panspermia ? Do you see how it fits into the ToE and isn't really a "third" choice.
Do you see how the statement
Quote: They found microbial life on the space shuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere.
is just plain wrong....as in factually incorrect.
We don't KNOW life is out there, everywhere, we just think there might be, at least the people who know what they're talking about do.
You might want to cast a wary in Lyndon LaRouche's direction
And Michael Tsarion . yes, sure, I'd call him "interesting" ( on a good day ) but he's part conspiracy theory, and part made up stories all wrapped up in a clever package designed first to "blow your mind" then "blow your budget" No, he's not alone, there's tons of people just willing to gobble up what he's selling so they too, can be wrong.
Re the Mayans, If they were so smart, how then, did they fail to predict their own extinction, and when they finally realised they had a problem, why did they only respond by increasing their rate of war and ritual sacrifice ? "Hey !! we're all dieing out, let's have more wars...yays" .......oops.
Next...fun with Zeitgeist addendum and the Venus Project.
Snowplow
18 posts
18 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoutHi Meanie.
Did you read my post above, the one where I mentioned misunderstandings about microbes being found on comets and the space shuttle ?
I did! Like I said in my previous posts. I am not saying anything is so, but people rule options out to fast, as being ridiculous, because it doesn't fit their view of the world. To be honest, this isn't my field of research, so I can't say if you are right or wrong.
Originally Posted By: StoutDid you do any research on panspermia ? Do you see how it fits into the ToE and isn't really a "third" choice.
Do you see how the statement
Quote: They found microbial life on the space shuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere.
is just plain wrong....as in factually incorrect.
We don't KNOW life is out there, everywhere, we just think there might be, at least the people who know what they're talking about do.
Could very well be wrong. I don't know. What I do know is that there is life on earth that survives without any photosynthesis. And this was considered impossible only a little while ago. And that is exactly my point. Science keeps making assumptions based on nothing and if information discredits the accepted viewpoint, it will be discreditted first always, because people have to admit they are wrong, and that is financially not the best option being a scientist.
This is especcially the case with scientists working for governmental organisations like the UN. If you say as a scientist global warming is part of a normal cycle of the Earth and the Sun, you can count on the fact you have to beg for money on the streets. If you say what they want you to say, you can count on very big allowances for your studies.
And you are right. We don't know if there is life out there, and I am not saying it is definitely so. I am advocating that we should keep the possibility open.
Originally Posted By: StoutYou might want to cast a wary in Lyndon LaRouche's direction
Actually I have had a quick glance at his activities, but I didn't have time to read about this in more detail.
Originally Posted By: StoutAnd Michael Tsarion . yes, sure, I'd call him "interesting" ( on a good day ) but he's part conspiracy theory, and part made up stories all wrapped up in a clever package designed first to "blow your mind" then "blow your budget" No, he's not alone, there's tons of people just willing to gobble up what he's selling so they too, can be wrong.
Well, I agree on most of your points. But that doesn't mean he is factually correct on areas. He also uses a lot of research done by many other people. His research on symbolism and ancient texts including the old testament are ringing bells. Some of the info even fits perfectly in other theories. I am not an expert on most that he claims, and I am not saying he speaks the gospel of life. My whole point was, that certain people are ignored, because they think outside the box. The fact he needs to make a living, doesn't prove anything. it is so easy to discredit people, and ignore the message. Now if there would be any evidence he is profiteering I would gladly accept it if it is true.
I understand your scepticism. I was and still am quite sceptical about a lot of stuff. And that is partially the reason I chose to let my own mind judge the information, and stop relying on main stream channels alone.
Originally Posted By: StoutRe the Mayans, If they were so smart, how then, did they fail to predict their own extinction, and when they finally realised they had a problem, why did they only respond by increasing their rate of war and ritual sacrifice ? "Hey !! we're all dieing out, let's have more wars...yays" .......oops.
Like the culture we live in is enlightened? What are you comparing too? We are fighting wars and mass kill children for the sake of personal gain.
That the Mayans itself were only human, and did some very weird things I don't doubt. But that they also had astrological knowledge that we only began to uncover in the last couple of centuries is also well known. Where did they get that info? By climbing trees and just looking at the stars daily? Where did they get the perfectly constructed structures, and why are the older ones way better than the newer ones? This parallels the pyramids in Egypt by the way. The Mayans were only a remnant of a much older civilization what they call Aztect, Toltecs and Inca(which are all wrong terms, but ok)
Originally Posted By: StoutNext...fun with Zeitgeist addendum and the Venus Project.
I sense you are heavily opposed to Zeitgeist. I agree that there are potential mistakes in the first movie regarding the connection between Christianity and ancient religions. That doesn't mean that they are wrong on that, because they barely scratched the surface on that subject.
On everything else they are factually very correct. Their sollution to the problem is one of opinion, and it definitely has merit. It is a matter of opinion, and I would love to discuss that subject, as I don't agree with every aspect of their sollution. The Venus Project is very interesting, but personally I have my doubts about that.
You call it conspiracy, I call it truth. I realise fully well, that there are a lot of shouting kooks out there, that make up stories for personal gain. There is also a lot of theories that are hard to prove. But! There aare a lot of events that can be proven beyond any shimmer of doubt that there is way more going on then officially admitted. And I don't base this on a couple of hours of research.
I would like to leave this topic at that, since we are already straying very far from the original topic. If it is a problem that the discussion is straying I apologise to the original poster. If you wish to discuss more politics, I would love to. Maybe we can open a new discussion.
My original point was that science, history, religion and politics are being controlled by some very idiotic dogma's which have no factual base, and continue to be discredited by outsiders. The fact these outsiders are being ignored has a lot of reasons, but none of them are factual. It is always easy to discredit the messenger, and some messengers make it very easy to be discredited. But that proves nothing in itself.
Peace!
EDITED_BY: Meanie (1227493643)
Originally Posted By: StoutHi Meanie.
Did you read my post above, the one where I mentioned misunderstandings about microbes being found on comets and the space shuttle ?
I did! Like I said in my previous posts. I am not saying anything is so, but people rule options out to fast, as being ridiculous, because it doesn't fit their view of the world. To be honest, this isn't my field of research, so I can't say if you are right or wrong.
Originally Posted By: StoutDid you do any research on panspermia ? Do you see how it fits into the ToE and isn't really a "third" choice.
Do you see how the statement
Quote: They found microbial life on the space shuttle and on comets. Life is out there everywhere.
is just plain wrong....as in factually incorrect.
We don't KNOW life is out there, everywhere, we just think there might be, at least the people who know what they're talking about do.
Could very well be wrong. I don't know. What I do know is that there is life on earth that survives without any photosynthesis. And this was considered impossible only a little while ago. And that is exactly my point. Science keeps making assumptions based on nothing and if information discredits the accepted viewpoint, it will be discreditted first always, because people have to admit they are wrong, and that is financially not the best option being a scientist.
This is especcially the case with scientists working for governmental organisations like the UN. If you say as a scientist global warming is part of a normal cycle of the Earth and the Sun, you can count on the fact you have to beg for money on the streets. If you say what they want you to say, you can count on very big allowances for your studies.
And you are right. We don't know if there is life out there, and I am not saying it is definitely so. I am advocating that we should keep the possibility open.
Originally Posted By: StoutYou might want to cast a wary in Lyndon LaRouche's direction
Actually I have had a quick glance at his activities, but I didn't have time to read about this in more detail.
Originally Posted By: StoutAnd Michael Tsarion . yes, sure, I'd call him "interesting" ( on a good day ) but he's part conspiracy theory, and part made up stories all wrapped up in a clever package designed first to "blow your mind" then "blow your budget" No, he's not alone, there's tons of people just willing to gobble up what he's selling so they too, can be wrong.
Well, I agree on most of your points. But that doesn't mean he is factually correct on areas. He also uses a lot of research done by many other people. His research on symbolism and ancient texts including the old testament are ringing bells. Some of the info even fits perfectly in other theories. I am not an expert on most that he claims, and I am not saying he speaks the gospel of life. My whole point was, that certain people are ignored, because they think outside the box. The fact he needs to make a living, doesn't prove anything. it is so easy to discredit people, and ignore the message. Now if there would be any evidence he is profiteering I would gladly accept it if it is true.
I understand your scepticism. I was and still am quite sceptical about a lot of stuff. And that is partially the reason I chose to let my own mind judge the information, and stop relying on main stream channels alone.
Originally Posted By: StoutRe the Mayans, If they were so smart, how then, did they fail to predict their own extinction, and when they finally realised they had a problem, why did they only respond by increasing their rate of war and ritual sacrifice ? "Hey !! we're all dieing out, let's have more wars...yays" .......oops.
Like the culture we live in is enlightened? What are you comparing too? We are fighting wars and mass kill children for the sake of personal gain.
That the Mayans itself were only human, and did some very weird things I don't doubt. But that they also had astrological knowledge that we only began to uncover in the last couple of centuries is also well known. Where did they get that info? By climbing trees and just looking at the stars daily? Where did they get the perfectly constructed structures, and why are the older ones way better than the newer ones? This parallels the pyramids in Egypt by the way. The Mayans were only a remnant of a much older civilization what they call Aztect, Toltecs and Inca(which are all wrong terms, but ok)
Originally Posted By: StoutNext...fun with Zeitgeist addendum and the Venus Project.
I sense you are heavily opposed to Zeitgeist. I agree that there are potential mistakes in the first movie regarding the connection between Christianity and ancient religions. That doesn't mean that they are wrong on that, because they barely scratched the surface on that subject.
On everything else they are factually very correct. Their sollution to the problem is one of opinion, and it definitely has merit. It is a matter of opinion, and I would love to discuss that subject, as I don't agree with every aspect of their sollution. The Venus Project is very interesting, but personally I have my doubts about that.
You call it conspiracy, I call it truth. I realise fully well, that there are a lot of shouting kooks out there, that make up stories for personal gain. There is also a lot of theories that are hard to prove. But! There aare a lot of events that can be proven beyond any shimmer of doubt that there is way more going on then officially admitted. And I don't base this on a couple of hours of research.
I would like to leave this topic at that, since we are already straying very far from the original topic. If it is a problem that the discussion is straying I apologise to the original poster. If you wish to discuss more politics, I would love to. Maybe we can open a new discussion.
My original point was that science, history, religion and politics are being controlled by some very idiotic dogma's which have no factual base, and continue to be discredited by outsiders. The fact these outsiders are being ignored has a lot of reasons, but none of them are factual. It is always easy to discredit the messenger, and some messengers make it very easy to be discredited. But that proves nothing in itself.
Peace!
EDITED_BY: Meanie (1227493643)
Fire + Idiot * wind - brains = Oops²
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Hi Meanie
We can probably continue here safely, unless there's an upsurge in examples of atheist advertising. Or a backlash.
The thing about science is it's not as closed minded as some would like you to believe. Yes, at one point in time it was said that "all life is powered by the sun" and that was true, as far as the current knowledge was concerned. Extremophiles were discovered that proved that theory to be false and science not only greeted these discoveries with open arms, but negated that previous statement in light of new evidence.
Mind you, once these discoveries were made, other scientists wanted to see for themselves, which is not unreasonable.
Science really has nothing to do with a particular world view and is well open to the idea of "thinking outside the box" SETI, for example, or the search for water on Mars nut the "validity" of an idea lies within the idea of peer review and without that, all we have are unsubstantiated claims.
Like the Jesus=Egypt connection in Zeitgeist. One guy proposed this idea ( Gerald Massey, a pagan ) and it's been widely discounted in the archaeological community for years now, but someone grabbed the idea ( Araycha S, nom de plume for Dorothy Murdock ) stuck it in a movie and marketed it as "the truth" OH yea, and made up a bunch of stuff to make it sound convincing.
The Jesus myth hypothesis is a very active field...but no evidence linking Jesus to Egypt, just lots of other interesting stuff instead.
So, yes, life could be out there, and science is looking for it right now it's just a matter of getting enough of the right kind of evidence. ie, science is very open to the possibility.
You could say I'm heavily opposed to Zeitgeist, considering it's all lies. The first one anyway.
Z2 is more of the same old "were all victims" idea with it's take on fractional reserve banking, and the Venus Project is Star Trek. In other words it way heavy on socialism while completely ignoring human nature. In short, it's unworkable from a practical standpoint. Think Soviet Russia, but with lot's of cool gadgets doing everything for us.
Skepticism is good.
But it's also a heck of a lot of work.
There's a reason these "outsiders" are ignored and the reason is usually because they're making stuff up.
Cheers dude
Hi Meanie
We can probably continue here safely, unless there's an upsurge in examples of atheist advertising. Or a backlash.
The thing about science is it's not as closed minded as some would like you to believe. Yes, at one point in time it was said that "all life is powered by the sun" and that was true, as far as the current knowledge was concerned. Extremophiles were discovered that proved that theory to be false and science not only greeted these discoveries with open arms, but negated that previous statement in light of new evidence.
Mind you, once these discoveries were made, other scientists wanted to see for themselves, which is not unreasonable.
Science really has nothing to do with a particular world view and is well open to the idea of "thinking outside the box" SETI, for example, or the search for water on Mars nut the "validity" of an idea lies within the idea of peer review and without that, all we have are unsubstantiated claims.
Like the Jesus=Egypt connection in Zeitgeist. One guy proposed this idea ( Gerald Massey, a pagan ) and it's been widely discounted in the archaeological community for years now, but someone grabbed the idea ( Araycha S, nom de plume for Dorothy Murdock ) stuck it in a movie and marketed it as "the truth" OH yea, and made up a bunch of stuff to make it sound convincing.
The Jesus myth hypothesis is a very active field...but no evidence linking Jesus to Egypt, just lots of other interesting stuff instead.
So, yes, life could be out there, and science is looking for it right now it's just a matter of getting enough of the right kind of evidence. ie, science is very open to the possibility.
You could say I'm heavily opposed to Zeitgeist, considering it's all lies. The first one anyway.
Z2 is more of the same old "were all victims" idea with it's take on fractional reserve banking, and the Venus Project is Star Trek. In other words it way heavy on socialism while completely ignoring human nature. In short, it's unworkable from a practical standpoint. Think Soviet Russia, but with lot's of cool gadgets doing everything for us.
Skepticism is good.
But it's also a heck of a lot of work.
There's a reason these "outsiders" are ignored and the reason is usually because they're making stuff up.
Cheers dude
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Meanie Instead of intelligent life being a couple of hundred thousand years old, it could very well be millions or more.
Microbes don't generally fit into the category of 'intelligent'. Yep- potentially it could have been the case that extra-terrestrial microbes are the ancestors of all life on this planet (pretty hard to prove or disprove), but that possibility in no way implies the presence of intelligent life millions of years ago- it implies the presence of very stupid life millions of years ago that somehow made it to Earth. Where it evolved over millions of years into a slightly less stupid form of life, which has digital watches and the internet.
Originally Posted By: Meanie Instead of intelligent life being a couple of hundred thousand years old, it could very well be millions or more.
Microbes don't generally fit into the category of 'intelligent'. Yep- potentially it could have been the case that extra-terrestrial microbes are the ancestors of all life on this planet (pretty hard to prove or disprove), but that possibility in no way implies the presence of intelligent life millions of years ago- it implies the presence of very stupid life millions of years ago that somehow made it to Earth. Where it evolved over millions of years into a slightly less stupid form of life, which has digital watches and the internet.
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
Snowplow
18 posts
18 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoutHi Meanie
We can probably continue here safely, unless there's an upsurge in examples of atheist advertising. Or a backlash.
The thing about science is it's not as closed minded as some would like you to believe. Yes, at one point in time it was said that "all life is powered by the sun" and that was true, as far as the current knowledge was concerned. Extremophiles were discovered that proved that theory to be false and science not only greeted these discoveries with open arms, but negated that previous statement in light of new evidence.
It was quite hard to ignore that. Even if people wanted to.
I will name a few scientists that have been ridiculed and some are totally ignored to this day.
Royal R. Rife, researched radiofrequency use against cancer, viruses and bacteria and supposedly cured many diseases. Modern low budget experiments seem to prove his story. The only reason we even know of him, is that there were tapes about his work that were discovered in the 90s in very bad state.
Nikola Tesla. The man that could send electricity through the air and very likely successfully extracted energy from what we call the ether. Also known as zero point energy. He was on the brink of doing some big scale experiments, but they were cancelled, because all his sponsors backed away. This man is probably one of the biggest geniuses we have known in the last 150 years.
Georg Cantor. A mathemathician from the early 20th century that was ridiculed for his views on mathematical infinity. He wasn't the only one, as seen in the next documentary:
Other good documentary on the subject of censorship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=channel&v=wSk3OIrhDfA
Sadly, some other material I used is not in English. There are numerous other subjects. Growing Earth, UFO's, etc
Originally Posted By: StoutMind you, once these discoveries were made, other scientists wanted to see for themselves, which is not unreasonable.
True in some cases. But proving that there are proper scientists that truly want to know the truth, doesn't disprove that the scientific cabal represses knowledge too.
Originally Posted By: StoutScience really has nothing to do with a particular world view and is well open to the idea of "thinking outside the box" SETI, for example, or the search for water on Mars nut the "validity" of an idea lies within the idea of peer review and without that, all we have are unsubstantiated claims.
Good example of a theory that doesn't endanger the current world view. A potential growing earth, or zero point energy do. And those are ignored completely by the scientific cabal.
Originally Posted By: StoutLike the Jesus=Egypt connection in Zeitgeist. One guy proposed this idea ( Gerald Massey, a pagan ) and it's been widely discounted in the archaeological community for years now, but someone grabbed the idea ( Araycha S, nom de plume for Dorothy Murdock ) stuck it in a movie and marketed it as "the truth" OH yea, and made up a bunch of stuff to make it sound convincing.
Jordan Maxwell, Michael Tsarion. The occult is widely linked to Christianity and related religions by symbolism, writing and history. It is certainly not an only child of Murdock.
Originally Posted By: StoutThe Jesus myth hypothesis is a very active field...but no evidence linking Jesus to Egypt, just lots of other interesting stuff instead.
Evidence is a hard word in a historical context. There are even strong suggestions that there hasn't been a figure we know as Jezus. And there are very strong facts pointing to the fact the Church censored a lot of early bible material.
Originally Posted By: StoutSo, yes, life could be out there, and science is looking for it right now it's just a matter of getting enough of the right kind of evidence. ie, science is very open to the possibility.
Originally Posted By: StoutYou could say I'm heavily opposed to Zeitgeist, considering it's all lies. The first one anyway.
Thats a matter of opinion
Originally Posted By: StoutZ2 is more of the same old "were all victims" idea with it's take on fractional reserve banking, and the Venus Project is Star Trek. In other words it way heavy on socialism while completely ignoring human nature. In short, it's unworkable from a practical standpoint. Think Soviet Russia, but with lot's of cool gadgets doing everything for us.
I am no fan of socialism. Far from it actually. But comparing the Venus Project with socialism is a little to much for my taste. We could discuss their ideas in to great detail if you wish, but this statement is not valid in my opinion. They actually pose valid suggestions on human nature. Humans are not in essence altruistic. Some are, some tend to egoistic behaviour. Mostly it's a compromise of the 2. I am not saying I agree with it. I am saying we should keep the option open and discuss it. Something that is not being done now. Their idea on fractional reserve banking has been shared by many a president in the US. Including Woodrow Wilson that initiated the FED bill in 1913, Kennedy, Lincoln, Adams and more. A careful analysis of the system doesn't leave much doubt in my opinion. The whole concept of a private banking system controlling the money supply of a nation is idiotic to say the least. Even more considering the FED is pretty much the same as the IMF and the World Bank.
Originally Posted By: StoutSkepticism is good.
But it's also a heck of a lot of work.
There's a reason these "outsiders" are ignored and the reason is usually because they're making stuff up.
Scepticism and critical thinking are our sole defenses against outside influence. Better use them continuously. I prefer an open discussion on everything and making my own mind up vs an elite making their mind up and deciding it's better we don't get certain information.
Originally Posted By: hamamelisMicrobes don't generally fit into the category of 'intelligent'. Yep- potentially it could have been the case that extra-terrestrial microbes are the ancestors of all life on this planet (pretty hard to prove or disprove), but that possibility in no way implies the presence of intelligent life millions of years ago- it implies the presence of very stupid life millions of years ago that somehow made it to Earth. Where it evolved over millions of years into a slightly less stupid form of life, which has digital watches and the internet.
Never said that, but if the hypothesis of life in space, whether dormant or in any state, is possible it would be even more likely that there is a lot of intelligent life around. And with billions of stars around us, I see statistical evidence in favour of intelligent life anyway.
It's ancient cultures and loads of archaeological evidence that supports theories on intelligent life forms and longer human habitation of the Earth than currently assumed. Michael Cremo wrote a book on the subject of repressed archaeological material.
Examples. Maps of Piri Reis, ancient maps of antartica without ice, Jade sculptures in China with minute drilling holes, vases in Egypt made from one solid piece with a swan neck and wide interior(there was no technology available to do that, we would even have trouble now), and the list goes on and on.
I can probably keep digging facts up, but this is something people have to research themselves. The info is everywhere.
Peace!
Originally Posted By: StoutHi Meanie
We can probably continue here safely, unless there's an upsurge in examples of atheist advertising. Or a backlash.
The thing about science is it's not as closed minded as some would like you to believe. Yes, at one point in time it was said that "all life is powered by the sun" and that was true, as far as the current knowledge was concerned. Extremophiles were discovered that proved that theory to be false and science not only greeted these discoveries with open arms, but negated that previous statement in light of new evidence.
It was quite hard to ignore that. Even if people wanted to.
I will name a few scientists that have been ridiculed and some are totally ignored to this day.
Royal R. Rife, researched radiofrequency use against cancer, viruses and bacteria and supposedly cured many diseases. Modern low budget experiments seem to prove his story. The only reason we even know of him, is that there were tapes about his work that were discovered in the 90s in very bad state.
Nikola Tesla. The man that could send electricity through the air and very likely successfully extracted energy from what we call the ether. Also known as zero point energy. He was on the brink of doing some big scale experiments, but they were cancelled, because all his sponsors backed away. This man is probably one of the biggest geniuses we have known in the last 150 years.
Georg Cantor. A mathemathician from the early 20th century that was ridiculed for his views on mathematical infinity. He wasn't the only one, as seen in the next documentary:
Other good documentary on the subject of censorship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=channel&v=wSk3OIrhDfA
Sadly, some other material I used is not in English. There are numerous other subjects. Growing Earth, UFO's, etc
Originally Posted By: StoutMind you, once these discoveries were made, other scientists wanted to see for themselves, which is not unreasonable.
True in some cases. But proving that there are proper scientists that truly want to know the truth, doesn't disprove that the scientific cabal represses knowledge too.
Originally Posted By: StoutScience really has nothing to do with a particular world view and is well open to the idea of "thinking outside the box" SETI, for example, or the search for water on Mars nut the "validity" of an idea lies within the idea of peer review and without that, all we have are unsubstantiated claims.
Good example of a theory that doesn't endanger the current world view. A potential growing earth, or zero point energy do. And those are ignored completely by the scientific cabal.
Originally Posted By: StoutLike the Jesus=Egypt connection in Zeitgeist. One guy proposed this idea ( Gerald Massey, a pagan ) and it's been widely discounted in the archaeological community for years now, but someone grabbed the idea ( Araycha S, nom de plume for Dorothy Murdock ) stuck it in a movie and marketed it as "the truth" OH yea, and made up a bunch of stuff to make it sound convincing.
Jordan Maxwell, Michael Tsarion. The occult is widely linked to Christianity and related religions by symbolism, writing and history. It is certainly not an only child of Murdock.
Originally Posted By: StoutThe Jesus myth hypothesis is a very active field...but no evidence linking Jesus to Egypt, just lots of other interesting stuff instead.
Evidence is a hard word in a historical context. There are even strong suggestions that there hasn't been a figure we know as Jezus. And there are very strong facts pointing to the fact the Church censored a lot of early bible material.
Originally Posted By: StoutSo, yes, life could be out there, and science is looking for it right now it's just a matter of getting enough of the right kind of evidence. ie, science is very open to the possibility.
Originally Posted By: StoutYou could say I'm heavily opposed to Zeitgeist, considering it's all lies. The first one anyway.
Thats a matter of opinion
Originally Posted By: StoutZ2 is more of the same old "were all victims" idea with it's take on fractional reserve banking, and the Venus Project is Star Trek. In other words it way heavy on socialism while completely ignoring human nature. In short, it's unworkable from a practical standpoint. Think Soviet Russia, but with lot's of cool gadgets doing everything for us.
I am no fan of socialism. Far from it actually. But comparing the Venus Project with socialism is a little to much for my taste. We could discuss their ideas in to great detail if you wish, but this statement is not valid in my opinion. They actually pose valid suggestions on human nature. Humans are not in essence altruistic. Some are, some tend to egoistic behaviour. Mostly it's a compromise of the 2. I am not saying I agree with it. I am saying we should keep the option open and discuss it. Something that is not being done now. Their idea on fractional reserve banking has been shared by many a president in the US. Including Woodrow Wilson that initiated the FED bill in 1913, Kennedy, Lincoln, Adams and more. A careful analysis of the system doesn't leave much doubt in my opinion. The whole concept of a private banking system controlling the money supply of a nation is idiotic to say the least. Even more considering the FED is pretty much the same as the IMF and the World Bank.
Originally Posted By: StoutSkepticism is good.
But it's also a heck of a lot of work.
There's a reason these "outsiders" are ignored and the reason is usually because they're making stuff up.
Scepticism and critical thinking are our sole defenses against outside influence. Better use them continuously
. I prefer an open discussion on everything and making my own mind up vs an elite making their mind up and deciding it's better we don't get certain information.Originally Posted By: hamamelisMicrobes don't generally fit into the category of 'intelligent'. Yep- potentially it could have been the case that extra-terrestrial microbes are the ancestors of all life on this planet (pretty hard to prove or disprove), but that possibility in no way implies the presence of intelligent life millions of years ago- it implies the presence of very stupid life millions of years ago that somehow made it to Earth. Where it evolved over millions of years into a slightly less stupid form of life, which has digital watches and the internet.
Never said that, but if the hypothesis of life in space, whether dormant or in any state, is possible it would be even more likely that there is a lot of intelligent life around. And with billions of stars around us, I see statistical evidence in favour of intelligent life anyway.
It's ancient cultures and loads of archaeological evidence that supports theories on intelligent life forms and longer human habitation of the Earth than currently assumed. Michael Cremo wrote a book on the subject of repressed archaeological material.
Examples. Maps of Piri Reis, ancient maps of antartica without ice, Jade sculptures in China with minute drilling holes, vases in Egypt made from one solid piece with a swan neck and wide interior(there was no technology available to do that, we would even have trouble now), and the list goes on and on.
I can probably keep digging facts up, but this is something people have to research themselves. The info is everywhere.
Peace!
Fire + Idiot * wind - brains = Oops²
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Hi Meanie
Quote:Scepticism and critical thinking are our sole defenses against outside influence. Better use them continuously . I prefer an open discussion on everything and making my own mind up.
Yes, that's the best approach.
But are you skeptical enough to consider that some of this "underground" information you've been getting might not be factually correct.
For your consideration...
YouTube is the last place you should be seeking information from, you said it yourself, there's crazies everywhere, and YouTube is their favourite means of communication.
There never were any "microbes" discovered on the space shuttle or inside a comet.
Tesla did some amazing things, but he crossed that line between genius and insanity and came up with things that never worked, like the water engine ( please, no references to Stan Meyers or HHO devices )
Zero point energy is nothing but a fraud, sure Mark Golds is "on the brink" but so were the Orbo folk,where are the devices ?
The "occult" may be linked to Christianity, but Egypt isn't, that's a made up story with made up "evidence". Evidence isn't a hard word, it's what's used to back up theories. Yes, there are the Gnostic texts, "evidence" that the bible has been "edited"
Why would "the scientific cabal" want to suppress knowledge, there's tons of money to be made. For instance whoever gets a decent fusion reactor online will be very, very rich.
Why then if fractional reserve banking isn't such a good idea, do all the governments in the "western" world use it ?
The FED is not, and never was a private bank.
Michael Cremo is a creationist, 'nuff said
Quote:And with billions of stars around us, I see statistical evidence in favour of intelligent life anyway.
Yes, I agree but so far we haven't "made contact" well, there was Area 51
Yes the info is everywhere, it's a matter of sorting out the good from the bad
Hi Meanie
Quote:Scepticism and critical thinking are our sole defenses against outside influence. Better use them continuously . I prefer an open discussion on everything and making my own mind up.
Yes, that's the best approach.
But are you skeptical enough to consider that some of this "underground" information you've been getting might not be factually correct.
For your consideration...
YouTube is the last place you should be seeking information from, you said it yourself, there's crazies everywhere, and YouTube is their favourite means of communication.
There never were any "microbes" discovered on the space shuttle or inside a comet.
Tesla did some amazing things, but he crossed that line between genius and insanity and came up with things that never worked, like the water engine ( please, no references to Stan Meyers or HHO devices )
Zero point energy is nothing but a fraud, sure Mark Golds is "on the brink" but so were the Orbo folk,where are the devices ?
The "occult" may be linked to Christianity, but Egypt isn't, that's a made up story with made up "evidence". Evidence isn't a hard word, it's what's used to back up theories. Yes, there are the Gnostic texts, "evidence" that the bible has been "edited"
Why would "the scientific cabal" want to suppress knowledge, there's tons of money to be made. For instance whoever gets a decent fusion reactor online will be very, very rich.
Why then if fractional reserve banking isn't such a good idea, do all the governments in the "western" world use it ?
The FED is not, and never was a private bank.
Michael Cremo is a creationist, 'nuff said
Quote:And with billions of stars around us, I see statistical evidence in favour of intelligent life anyway.
Yes, I agree but so far we haven't "made contact" well, there was Area 51
Yes the info is everywhere, it's a matter of sorting out the good from the bad
BRONZE Member
compfuzzled
1,182 posts
Location: hastings, England (UK)
compfuzzled
1,182 posts
Location: hastings, England (UK)
stranger
6 posts
6 posts
Posted:
The "probably" is a sensible addition, negatives can not be proved. If you believe in God, or believe there MAY be a God it is not necessary to follow any religion at all. You can even follow the teachings of Jesus to the letter without being a Christian. It is unfortunate that the gentle prophet was highjacked by "Saint" Paul the mysogynist and then by the Roman church and its blood-stained successors and variants.
The doctrines of Heaven and Hell, the Devil and original sin, virgin birth, resurrection, saints, Holy places things and people and the Trinity are such obvious balderdash that I can't understand any sane person believing them. Many people object to the obvious nonsense of all the established religions that they react by declaring themselves either agnostic or ('probably' if they are completely honest)atheist, and feel rudderless as a result. They can take comfort, and still believe in the teachings of Jesus and believe in God if you wish.
You can just abandon the "religious" crap. You can, for example believe in a creator without believing creation took 7 days 6000 years ago. What a ridiculous fairy story!
You can do good just because you ARE good.Only psychopaths and religionists commit murder, lie and steal.
The "probably" is a sensible addition, negatives can not be proved. If you believe in God, or believe there MAY be a God it is not necessary to follow any religion at all. You can even follow the teachings of Jesus to the letter without being a Christian. It is unfortunate that the gentle prophet was highjacked by "Saint" Paul the mysogynist and then by the Roman church and its blood-stained successors and variants.
The doctrines of Heaven and Hell, the Devil and original sin, virgin birth, resurrection, saints, Holy places things and people and the Trinity are such obvious balderdash that I can't understand any sane person believing them. Many people object to the obvious nonsense of all the established religions that they react by declaring themselves either agnostic or ('probably' if they are completely honest)atheist, and feel rudderless as a result. They can take comfort, and still believe in the teachings of Jesus and believe in God if you wish.
You can just abandon the "religious" crap. You can, for example believe in a creator without believing creation took 7 days 6000 years ago. What a ridiculous fairy story!
You can do good just because you ARE good.Only psychopaths and religionists commit murder, lie and steal.
stranger
6 posts
6 posts
Posted:
Mainstream Buddhism is also tolerant of other religions, you can be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Bhuddist, you would get grief only from the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who would deny your right to be a Buddhist..
Mainstream Buddhism is also tolerant of other religions, you can be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Bhuddist, you would get grief only from the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who would deny your right to be a Buddhist..
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
For those who are attacking "Science," I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
There are two components of "Science." One is the scientific method. That states that you gain knowledge by asking a question and then designing an experiment that answers that question. The results of that experiment dictate the knowledge. The scientific method is iron-clad and, if used correctly, should give erroneous results <5% of the time (by convention, most studies use a minimum confidence interval of 95% to prove statistical significance).
Now, you have to remember that you can't hold the writings of men like Plato and Aristotle against the current scientific establishments. The modern scientific method is only about 1,000 years old.
The other component of "Science" is scientists and the non-scientific establishment. In other words, the human beings who use the scientific method. Humans are awful creatures. They have private agendas, personal egos, a desire for financial gain, a desire for power, etc.
And this is why studies by drug A's manufacturer find that drug A is superior to drug B (oh, but they used a lower dose of drug B than drug A). And this is why the anti-abortion folks like to wave around the link between birth control= (Breast cancer is inversely associated with pregnancy. Since women who get abortions and/or use birth control are going to have fewer pregnancies carried to term, they will obviously be at increased risk of breast cancer with respect to women who don't get abortions. Of course, that means that abstinence from sex is a risk factor for breast cancer, too! Thus, nuns tend to get more breast cancer than the general population. The anti-abortion folks don't like to mention that bit!).
It is a myth that when a new finding is announced that the scientific establishment says "Ah, so!" and gladly accepts the new findings. In fact, as late as the 70's, some biologists still insisted that proteins, and not DNA, were the molecules of heredity.
What actually happens is that the old people who are married to their ideas retire and/or die. And the young people who have entered the profession with more open minds replace them.
Does this mean that Tesla's work on zero-point energy is a vast, amazing breakthrough that will never be discovered because of the obstinance of the scientific establishment? Well, first of all, the idea of vacuum energy has been embraced by the physics community with the discovery of virtual parties and Hawking radiation. And second of all, the more we learn about it, the harder it seems to be able to tap it. It's very doubtful that any of Tesla's work would have succeeded. I can think of thousands of "revolutionaries" who have been ridiculed by the scientific establishment and rightly so. Even great scientists are prone to this.
Example: Linus Pauling was a Nobel-Prize winning quantum mechanicist (or whatever you call those people). And it got to his head. He started to meddle in the fields of biochemistry and medicine, where he had no idea what he was doing. He proposed that antibodies learn the shape of their antigen, rather than being pre-made to bind to a given antigen. And he clung to that theory in spite of pretty clear proof that he was wrong. He also developed this theory of "orthomolecular medicine" and clung to it in spite of study after study revealing no benefit and even some harm.
To this day, proponents of "orthomolecular medicine" hold Linus Pauling up as a genius who was rejected by a conservative establishment. After all, he won a Nobel Prize! But this is a logical fallacy. The fact that he was an expert scientist in quantum mechanics gives him neither authority nor validity in the medical field. Even this "great scientist" succumbed to his own ego and his unwillingness to accept factual data in the face of his own agenda.
The proof, or as close as we can get to proof, is in the data returned by well-designed studies that ask and answer well-thought-out questions. It is unfortunate that science needs to be conducted by humans because I sometimes wonder if scientists and those who stand to benefit or lose from their findings do more to help science or harm it.
For those who are attacking "Science," I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
There are two components of "Science." One is the scientific method. That states that you gain knowledge by asking a question and then designing an experiment that answers that question. The results of that experiment dictate the knowledge. The scientific method is iron-clad and, if used correctly, should give erroneous results <5% of the time (by convention, most studies use a minimum confidence interval of 95% to prove statistical significance).
Now, you have to remember that you can't hold the writings of men like Plato and Aristotle against the current scientific establishments. The modern scientific method is only about 1,000 years old.
The other component of "Science" is scientists and the non-scientific establishment. In other words, the human beings who use the scientific method. Humans are awful creatures. They have private agendas, personal egos, a desire for financial gain, a desire for power, etc.
And this is why studies by drug A's manufacturer find that drug A is superior to drug B (oh, but they used a lower dose of drug B than drug A). And this is why the anti-abortion folks like to wave around the link between birth control= (Breast cancer is inversely associated with pregnancy. Since women who get abortions and/or use birth control are going to have fewer pregnancies carried to term, they will obviously be at increased risk of breast cancer with respect to women who don't get abortions. Of course, that means that abstinence from sex is a risk factor for breast cancer, too! Thus, nuns tend to get more breast cancer than the general population. The anti-abortion folks don't like to mention that bit!).
It is a myth that when a new finding is announced that the scientific establishment says "Ah, so!" and gladly accepts the new findings. In fact, as late as the 70's, some biologists still insisted that proteins, and not DNA, were the molecules of heredity.
What actually happens is that the old people who are married to their ideas retire and/or die. And the young people who have entered the profession with more open minds replace them.
Does this mean that Tesla's work on zero-point energy is a vast, amazing breakthrough that will never be discovered because of the obstinance of the scientific establishment? Well, first of all, the idea of vacuum energy has been embraced by the physics community with the discovery of virtual parties and Hawking radiation. And second of all, the more we learn about it, the harder it seems to be able to tap it. It's very doubtful that any of Tesla's work would have succeeded. I can think of thousands of "revolutionaries" who have been ridiculed by the scientific establishment and rightly so. Even great scientists are prone to this.
Example: Linus Pauling was a Nobel-Prize winning quantum mechanicist (or whatever you call those people). And it got to his head. He started to meddle in the fields of biochemistry and medicine, where he had no idea what he was doing. He proposed that antibodies learn the shape of their antigen, rather than being pre-made to bind to a given antigen. And he clung to that theory in spite of pretty clear proof that he was wrong. He also developed this theory of "orthomolecular medicine" and clung to it in spite of study after study revealing no benefit and even some harm.
To this day, proponents of "orthomolecular medicine" hold Linus Pauling up as a genius who was rejected by a conservative establishment. After all, he won a Nobel Prize! But this is a logical fallacy. The fact that he was an expert scientist in quantum mechanics gives him neither authority nor validity in the medical field. Even this "great scientist" succumbed to his own ego and his unwillingness to accept factual data in the face of his own agenda.
The proof, or as close as we can get to proof, is in the data returned by well-designed studies that ask and answer well-thought-out questions. It is unfortunate that science needs to be conducted by humans because I sometimes wonder if scientists and those who stand to benefit or lose from their findings do more to help science or harm it.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Whilst I understand the addition for "probably" to the campaign for most of the reasons mentioned here I find it quite annoying that the "probably" addition is needed to easily pass through advertising standards. Until religious adverts carry the same caveat then the ingrained bias towards religion continues.
I think the point of the atheist adverts are to highlight a typically silent group who think religion gets too much ability to interfere with all our lives. Whilst I'm not insiting the lord's prayer start "Our father who might be in heaven" I think religious adverts reading "Jesus might love you" or "Eternal salvation a possibility" help balance things out.
Whilst I understand the addition for "probably" to the campaign for most of the reasons mentioned here I find it quite annoying that the "probably" addition is needed to easily pass through advertising standards. Until religious adverts carry the same caveat then the ingrained bias towards religion continues.
I think the point of the atheist adverts are to highlight a typically silent group who think religion gets too much ability to interfere with all our lives. Whilst I'm not insiting the lord's prayer start "Our father who might be in heaven" I think religious adverts reading "Jesus might love you" or "Eternal salvation a possibility" help balance things out.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com