I'd also like to make one thing clear here that you seem to overlook, lucid. Belief does not equate with knowledge. Anyone who thinks that it's okay to pass a belief off like it's a truism invites mockery - especially if what they believe in is not only untenable but also beyond ludicrous. They lack rational thought.
Philosophy at its best will take into account what has been scientifically established (facts) and build feasible trains of thought - many of which can be a priori deductions or reasoning that can benefit all. Philosophical belief is open to change according to what presents itself in reality - not to be mistaken for belief based on faith or dogma (which is irrational).
For instance, philosopher Daniel Dennett, as a compatibilist, will agree with neuroscientist Sam Harris that there is no free will because he has no choice. Science reveals that our decisions are made before we become aware of them and logic tells us that free will is an untenable concept. But Dennett will disagree with Harris, a hard determinist, in that free will is too strong an illusion to ignore and thus we must behave as though it is really there. And then someone like Christopher Hitchens may come along and quip something like this: "I think there is free will because we have no choice but to have it."
A philosopher will think deeply into these matters. Science and philosophy can work together sensibly. The philosopher may rightly ask: "How can free will coexist with divine pre-ordination (assuming that there is a Creator however infeasible this might be)?"
But there is no room for taking leaps of faith, fantasising, dogma and other forms of irrationality. We can't afford such distractions in this day and age.
Summerlander wrote:I'd also like to make one thing clear here that you seem to overlook, lucid. Belief does not equate with knowledge. Anyone who thinks that it's okay to pass a belief off like it's a truism invites mockery - especially if what they believe in is not only untenable but also beyond ludicrous. They lack rational thought
You're the one who keeps saying anyone who believes in anything that you don't agree with is "passing off beliefs as knowlege" This is purely your projection that you use in order for you to justify your insistence that no one should be allowed to have their own beliefs. Everything that everyone believes doesn't need to be based on provable science or your version of "logic". People who have unproven beliefs are irrational, illogical, uninformed or just plain stupid in your mind. Why don't you just stop telling everyone what to think? Why do people's beliefs bother you so much that you constantly insult them? You say the same things over and over again like a broken record. According to you, we have no room for beliefs in this world, but this is an attitude which again exists in your mind. There is plently of room is this world for people to believe whatever they want about God, the afterlife, spirtuality, consciousness, etc. One of the biggest problem we have in this world is intolerance, whether it comes from religious fundementalists or atheists. We all need to learn to tolerate people who don't agree with us. This is what I can't stand about religious fundamentalists who judge everyone who doesn't agree with them and insist that everyone else is wrong and they are right.
There's always room for beliefs!
[ Post made via Android ]
Or join my forums!
Why do we exist? I have a suspicion...the universe needs us (conscious beings) to observe it and confirm its existence. If there is no consciousness the universe cannot be said to exist. Our purpose? To name everything we encounter in this universe through language (another thing that we developed). We define, we give meaning, that's our job...we work for the universe...we are an expression of this universe...we are the universe. Without the universe there is no you. We are the universe trying to understand itself. We are the universe wondering why the hell it is.
Please correct me if Im wrong but Im getting the impression from your posts that you think science is always correct and the facts which have been put out by science are right. What about if say 10% of science is actually wrong?
I'd like to say to that that science is often proven to be wrong. Things which were thought to be a fact due to previous science findings are found to be wrong. There is currently much biased happening in science eg ones may choose to do a certain study with the view of getting their own thoughts of what they believe the outcome to be proven. This can end up leading to scientists publishing studies and only including the stuff which fitted whatever message they wanted to get across but leaving out the full info of what they actually found.
The wording being used in some studies can be used to decieve. Sometimes even the way they are going to determine outcome is changed half way throu a biased study when it is seen the outcome they wanted to happen isnt going to happen. (I know of a current big gov study in which that has happened in, it could take years thou in which this very bad study goes offically thrown out and till then drs are quoting it as a "good study" as all they read is the conclusions and havent analysed the study and the biased way it was done).
Some very powerful biased groups of researchers have formed with biased beliefs which work with the governments and help make policies. These groups can be so powerful that I know of case in which one countries gov due to some public outcry going on as we know the research is wrong, hired independant reviewers to analyse all the studies in a certain area which ended up giving the conclusion Im aware of being the truth in this field, so gov policy was meant to be changed to comply with the findings but then the gov choose to ignore its own independant reviewers due to pressure of the other ones who are worldwide. One gov on finally doing a proper independant analyses of what is going on.. obviously felt too uncomfortable about the findings to then go against the world status quo...World governments peer pressure??? (People are very uncomfortable to step outside of the current beliefs and go to oppositive ones even if good research is showing that. Instead very poorly done accepted research is allowed to remain).
There is also often outward lying happening in science too (thou science is self correcting over time.. a very long time may go by before falsified outcomes are disproven). Over 10% of studies I think it was have been found to lie about outcomes (I'll see if i can find the link to the recent study which looked at current research and amount deciet in it to put here as I assume you will probably try to dispute this).
The way science is currently being done also is causing many false impressions eg drug companies do studies for their products but there is nothing to force them into publishing studies which dont show as much success with a product. They can redo a study over and over and then pubish the better results.
Then there is biased happening in science journals too.. studies being published have to go throu a reviewer process and if the new science coming out is quite different to the old science.. there may be biased towards not wanting to publish the different science (the reviewers tend to be a lot harder on a science paper which shows differences to the norm making it less likely to be published).
Anyway.. Im just trying to point out that science is often based on biased views and is not always correct either. Some are actually falsifying science or publishing things before they've properly checked them so they can get their big government grants, so they can do more science (as they are often under pressure to be publishing their studies and hence may end up trying to rush stuff. I currently know of one case in which this has gone on and people are working in science fields to have corrected but high ups are being reluctant to correct and say it doesnt matter anymore (as the lead researcher when asked by the journal to provide more info in regards to some complaining it wasnt making sense.. he went and commited suicide).. that is even thou this study is being now quoted by other studies as being fact.
What is the leading force in science? I'd say MONEY.. as without money studies cant be done. Who's got the money to be doing these often biased studies? Often big companies or industries who care more about their money then unbiased research. Many good studies which would help to disprove current biased science views arent getting the funding to go ahead.. things like big pharma and other big companies views and what they want to prove or not prove.. often tend to push science in certain biased directions which is often too producing misleading science.
I protested the lack of unbiases in research at a research conference back in November as I feel so strongly about this after seeing so much bad research/science being done and even research conferences are being biased so I was trying to change that eg the research conferences tend to just highlight certain areas of their own areas of research and often dont tend to highlight opposing good research in some fields. More people need to protest about this or other wise all the issues will go on in science.
People are currently also pushing hard to make it so studies have to give all their study info rather then being "selective" in what they say about it. Some studies are pushing certain outcomes but hiding how they came to them which makes the studies harder to oppose and one can try to find out throu the freedom of info act but they dont have to share if they say they are going to do follow up studies so wont share, so the FOI will keep being denied. (they can be forever giving that excuse so that no one can dispute how they come to their conclusion which actually could be fraudulant).
Lots of things said to be "proven" now in 300 years or whatever time may be said to be completely wrong. Research can be just as bad as governments with many lies and deception going on due money and the biased nature of things.
Science finds out the facts. If a scientific theory is wrong, it is mended through practice. There is room for paradigm shifts. There are no doctrines in science. I've said this before and I'll say it again: it is religion who claims to know about the nature of the universe without evidence, only ancient scripture that would bring hoots of laughter from Shakespeare.
Moreover, while science offer simple beginnings for the universe, religion complicates things with a Creator God only to deepen a mystery. A creator cannot be because He would have to be far more complex than the universe itself, and, while we observe that our universe evolved from simplicity, a God does not even come close to solving anything. You'd have to ask who created God and who created his maker and so forth ad infinitum. It's absurd. He certainly couldn't have always been.
I'll make it simpler. God does not exist. If you believe in Him you might as well believe in Peter Pan too. You are deluding yourself and living in fear of being judged.
I'll be generous here and recommend the work of a genius. Get reading The Origin of the Species by Darwin and understand natural selection.
[ Post made via Android ]
Summerlander wrote:Science finds out the facts. If a scientific theory is wrong, it is mended through practice. There is room for paradigm shifts. There are no doctrines in science. I've said this before and I'll say it again: it is religion who claims to know about the nature of the universe without evidence, only ancient scripture that would bring hoots of laughter from Shakespeare.
This is common knowlege. We already know that beliefs can't be proven, they are not scientific. Why must you repeat this endlessly? God can't proven, religion can't be proven, Santa Claus, fairy tales, bla, bla bla ad infinitum.
There is only one reason I can think of why you keep doing this. It is an attempt to try to silence those people who dare to express their beliefs. That's really the only reason I can think of. You have no interest in contributing to a discussion on this subject other than to repeat the same worn out tripe, trying to bully others into silence.
Summerlander wrote:I think you guys mistakingly view science like it's some sort of religion. It's not! Lol!
Another one of your inventions. No one is confusing science and religion accept you apparently. You are the ONLY one who keeps doing that. Get it?
Ryan wrote:This is why YOU will always be out to jump on anything and everything I ever have to say here, or anywhere for that matter. Take a look at all your posts just in this thread alone, all the name calling you throw out, all the belittling you attempt to do to other people's beliefs... it's no surprise your OBE4U forum is empty now.
You create the world you live in... you've created an empty world for yourself.
You're a prime example of that which you try so hard to fight against.
Well, Summerlander isn't really just going against you because you're you. He's just constantly going against you because you are constantly presenting ideas that are very difficult to believe.
Normal Dream Count: 100+
Goal for next LD: Think with portals.
Ryan wrote:I honestly don't think you'll find a SINGLE PERSON on this site who believes your statement that Lucid and I are living in bubbles...
Oh! Oh! Pick me!
Normal Dream Count: 100+
Goal for next LD: Think with portals.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 0 guests