Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

Syne said:
It is the responsibility of the person asserting a new theory or idea to investigate it to the point of being able to show others that it has real merit. Hacks routinely assume that scientists should do their work for them. This is called shifting the burden of proof, and is a very common fallacy used by ignorant hacks who know they will never put in the actual work to prove anything themselves.
Click to expand...

I'll give you for my instance as an example

Why does hydrogen have liquid properties when brought down to about minus 270 degrees Celsius?

What I would have liked to do, is to see whether a single molecule of H2O would manifest a water droplet

If so that would mean that H2O goes beyond just the chemical bonds, which are necessary, but not the complete picture of the understanding of, H2O

So do you know any lab that would take up this experiment? And could do it throughly objective
 
river said:
First, most not all have not the resources that mainstream science does
Click to expand...

There are grants and financial aid for anyone seeking to further their education, and only the educated are trusted with the funds to do serious research. So go back to school and quit expecting the educated to do your work for you.

Second, define a hack, what are the characteristics of a hack
Click to expand...

James R said:
Attempt to shift burden of proof
For the pseudoscientist, the onus is on skeptics to "prove me wrong". The pseudoscientist does not expect to have to provide evidence for his claims. In fact, in most instances he studiously avoids having his claims put to the test.
Click to expand...

Read that whole post by James for all of the characteristics.

Syne said:
Do you know the difference between the scientific and common usage of the word?
Click to expand...
No, explain
Click to expand...

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. - http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm​

Common usage for "theory" is basically equivalent to speculation, without regard to observation, support, or experimentation, which is all hacks ever do.
 
river said:
I'll give you for my instance as an example

Why does hydrogen have liquid properties when brought down to about minus 270 degrees Celsius?

What I would have liked to do, is to see whether a single molecule of H2O would manifest a water droplet

If so that would mean that H2O goes beyond just the chemical bonds, which are necessary, but not the complete picture of the understanding of, H2O

So do you know any lab that would take up this experiment? And could do it throughly objective
Click to expand...

No, no one is going to do any experiment only to satisfy your curiosity. For one, you have not described any sort of experimental setup, so it would be pointless for someone to guess at what you wish to accomplish. That only leaves you getting the education necessary to either find out for yourself or realize that it was an ill-conceived question.
 
lightgigantic said:
Seriously, you pound people with jack hammers and then cry foul if you get brushed with a feather duster ....
Click to expand...

If you want docile, submissive serfs, then you should consider poisoning the wells so that our brains don't develop, or you should consider keeping your scriptures and your beliefs to yourselves so that we can't read them and use them against you.


Bear in mind that I oppose those whom I think they defame God's character, whether they are theists or atheists. The principles of my opposition are common sense ethics and the pursuit of consistency. So, for example, if someone claims there is no God, or that God will punish some people to eternal damnation, I will point out what I see as transgressions against common sense ethics and consistency.


lightgigantic said:
Thats why I suggested " so is it in t he case of theistic discussions, anyone who is not a theist is not required to adhere to the standard guidelines of sustaining/developing a relationship that we would otherwise lay down for any other scenario?"
Click to expand...

The relationship between a theist and a non-theist who is not a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic is unique. Because in it, only the theist has certainty or claims to have certainty on the one and only topic that per definition contextualizes everything, namely "God," the all-important topic, while the non-theist who is not a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic doesn't have this certainty, so this is where he is most vulnerable.

Without having certainty about God, the non-theist who is not a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic, has no choice but to allow for the possibility that anything people claim on the topic "God," may be true. This includes that when theists have killed, raped and pillaged, and claimed it was divinely justified, the non-theist who is not a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic, has to allow for this possibility that killing, raping and pillaging is divinely justified. Or that when a theist promises to pick one up from the airport, but doesn't and instead watches tv at home, the non-theist who is not a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic, is in the unenviable position of having to acknowledge this behavior from the theist as possibly appropriate and no hindrance to continuing the relationship with the theist, continuing to see the theist as an elevated and morally superior person.

This is why the relationship between a theist and a non-theist who is not a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic, is uneasy and unsettling for the non-theist who is not a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic, in ways that no other relationship is.


If living without certainty about God would be easy, I would have given up on talking to theists long ago. But as I am neither a strong atheist nor a strong agnostic, not having certainty about God is a weakness of mine, and I have to find ways to deal with that and to protect myself in this regard.
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
If one doesn't have patience one effectively gives up on one's self - it doesn't really matter how many second and third parties invest their resources in the subject.

Look, in short, yes nurturing and support is important to developing a bond to help the assistance of change, but if you are crying foul the moment you receive any sort of negative feedback you are simply inflating yourself in a position that is impractical and also advocating a principle that you (nor practically anyone else) cannot perform.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about origami or spiritual practice.
Click to expand...

It does matter. It makes all the possible difference in the world.

Apparently, you as a theist, are just trying to excuse your lowly behavior towards others when it comes to spirituality.



If you extend this notion of yours into all aspects of pedagogy, no one can effectively learn anything
Click to expand...

I suppose you find my lack of trust in you to be insulting.

But you have not earned the trust that you demand from me.


You'd rather die, or at least have yourself shot in the knee, than say that you care about me, don't you?
 
Last edited:
wynn said:
It does matter. It makes all the possible difference in the world.

Apparently, you as a theist, are just trying to excuse your lowly behavior towards others when it comes to spirituality.





I suppose you find my lack of trust in you to be insulting.

But you have not earned the trust that you demand from me.


You'd rather die, or at least have yourself shot in the knee, than say that you care about me, don't you?
Click to expand...
are you still beating your wife?
 
lightgigantic said:
on the contary, of late its difficult to find a post where you don't dive into derogatory accusations
/.../
as I said, so do you (except that you commonly delve into stronger language) . You simply imagine that you don't have a value system or conveniently ignore it for the sake of this discussion.
Click to expand...

You need to take a break and clear your mind, because you are seeing things that are not there.


Guess you were being to literal minded to see the context.

If a philosophical system advocates that every living entity is constitutionally sat cit ananda, how could you possibly interpret any displays of ignorance as anything else?
Click to expand...

So you are enticing me to interpret scripture? That very same scripture that says it is a sin to interpret scripture? You want me to blaspheme like that?

If scripture says that so and so is a rascal, then the scripture says so and so is a rascal, not that so and so is behaving in a rascal manner.

You think I should make up for the mistakes and logical inconsistencies in scriptures??
Really?!



lightgigantic said:
are you still beating your wife?
Click to expand...

QED.
 
Wynn, I wouldn't say not having strong belief in God is a weakness. I think you are better than a chest-poking evangelist, for example.
 
wynn said:
Apparently, you as a theist, are just trying to excuse your lowly behavior towards others when it comes to spirituality.
Click to expand...

Not a single one of you seems to accept my spirituality. Wynn, when on spirituality, just a heads up for everyone, incriminate, don't discriminate. I get spiritual on the idea of believing for God, by nature perfectly, for all eternity. For me, I can't just be in Heaven, I need to be man there.
 
Syne said:
No, no one is going to do any experiment only to satisfy your curiosity. For one, you have not described any sort of experimental setup, so it would be pointless for someone to guess at what you wish to accomplish. That only leaves you getting the education necessary to either find out for yourself or realize that it was an ill-conceived question.
Click to expand...

Anyway Syne I don't care so much any more its been along time since I thought about, and to correct what I wanted to find out, was actually whether one atom of Hydrogen would have a droplet of ,some kind of fluid

But anyway

Mainstream science is kind of boring really

I joined, recently

www.Coasttocoastam.com
And
www.redicecreations.com

They are both radio stations, best money I've spent in a while, not really expensive, about $75.00 for the both for 6mons, for that I can get into their archives

There was one interview on redice with Randy Powell intriguing

I'm sure there are other stations, I joined these two

My point is you won't find the more interesting things that are going on out there by mainstream anything really, these two radio stations really open your mind up to what things are also going that you simply don't know about

It is very fascinating stuff to be sure
 
elte said:
Wynn, I wouldn't say not having strong belief in God is a weakness. I think you are better than a chest-poking evangelist, for example.
Click to expand...

I think you, too, know damn well how hard it is to live without having certainty about God.
 
river said:
Anyway Syne I don't care so much any more its been along time since I thought about, and to correct what I wanted to find out, was actually whether one atom of Hydrogen would have a droplet of ,some kind of fluid

But anyway

Mainstream science is kind of boring really

I joined, recently

www.Coasttocoastam.com
And
www.redicecreations.com

They are both radio stations, best money I've spent in a while, not really expensive, about $75.00 for the both for 6mons, for that I can get into their archives

There was one interview on redice with Randy Powell intriguing

I'm sure there are other stations, I joined these two

My point is you won't find the more interesting things that are going on out there by mainstream anything really, these two radio stations really open your mind up to what things are also going that you simply don't know about

It is very fascinating stuff to be sure
Click to expand...

Yep, those two sites are definitely magnets for crackpots, hacks, and woo of all varieties.

If you find actual science boring then stick to the science-fiction and quit complaining about no one lending your nonsense any credence. Interesting is not necessary factual, although it is often fanciful.
 
Originally Posted by river
Anyway Syne I don't care so much any more its been along time since I thought about, and to correct what I wanted to find out, was actually whether one atom of Hydrogen would have a droplet of ,some kind of fluid

But anyway

Mainstream science is kind of boring really

I joined, recently

www.Coasttocoastam.com
And
www.redicecreations.com

They are both radio stations, best money I've spent in a while, not really expensive, about $75.00 for the both for 6mons, for that I can get into their archives

There was one interview on redice with Randy Powell intriguing

I'm sure there are other stations, I joined these two

My point is you won't find the more interesting things that are going on out there by mainstream anything really, these two radio stations really open your mind up to what things are also going that you simply don't know about

It is very fascinating stuff to be sure



Syne said:
Yep, those two sites are definitely magnets for crackpots, hacks, and woo of all varieties.

If you find actual science boring then stick to the science-fiction and quit complaining about no one lending your nonsense any credence. Interesting is not necessary factual, although it is often fanciful.
Click to expand...

That kind of comment just proved my point about mainstream thinking
 
river said:
That kind of comment just proved my point about mainstream thinking
Click to expand...

And you have abundantly proven my point about hacks. Did you ever read that post by James R about pseudoscientists? Probably not, as hacks typically suffer from significant cognitive bias.
 
Syne said:
And you have abundantly proven my point about hacks.
Click to expand...

As I asked before define hacks



Did you ever read that post by James R about pseudoscientists? Probably not, as hacks typically suffer from significant cognitive bias.
Click to expand...

No

I see " suffer from significant cognitive bias " what does this mean!!!
 
river said:
I think you, too, know damn well how hard it is to live without having certainty about God.
Click to expand...
Why though?
Click to expand...

Because humans are beings that inherently have a metaphysical aspect to them, and they seek certainty in that aspect too.


You said earlier:

river said:
So what I'm trying to do is have Humanity think of its self with NO metaphysics involved
Click to expand...

I think you are asking for something impossible.

Unless you are actually trying to eliminate only a particular school of metaphysics, as opposed to all metaphysics altogether.
 
T
wynn said:
Because humans are beings that inherently have a metaphysical aspect to them, and they seek certainty in that aspect too.
Click to expand...

Of course

I'm suggesting that we get out of this mindset




You said earlier:



I think you are asking for something impossible.

Unless you are actually trying to eliminate only a particular school of metaphysics, as opposed to all metaphysics altogether.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to eliminate metaphysics, just put it aside for now

We need to see where Humanity would go on its own

We can build a philosophy based on what we humans find important to ourselves with no metaphysical philosophy involved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top