Agreed but any speculations or ideas must stand up to scrutiny to further the discussion and the person proposing them should expect to be put through the fire.
Why am I not banned?
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
- Status
Agreed but any speculations or ideas must stand up to scrutiny to further the discussion and the person proposing them should expect to be put through the fire.
Irrelevant.
Mmm....... K?
No I did not.
Can you read? Not in context huh? Well let me help you out.
Essentially you are denying a cause in this instance as for an ultimate frame of reference to our reality. You cant use a man made construct (organized religion, myths, stories) to debunk a "super natural" or non-man concept in a philosophical based argument for if god provided us proof it would be natural thus no argument is required. Thus you saying organized religion discredits the idea is the same as me making up your mother is a prostitute even if she is a nun and using that made up story as a point of reference in discrediting the idea that your mom isnt a nun as long as my myth is perpetuated and is popular the association would be a valid course for debunk? I think not.
What are you talking about, this makes absolutely no sense what you are saying. What is a logical fact??? That these stories are made up??
It seems like trying to me. Failed attempt but trying in every sense of the word. Alas, you say something and nothing in the same instance.
you are not understanding. it's the nature of the subject matter that speculation is all there is to define it at this time. then there would be no discussion except going round and round about there being no definitive proof which is circular.
when there is not enough knowledge about how the universe works as well in dealing with the unknown and a lack of testing apparatus, what is there to discuss if that is all that is allowed to be discussed?
speculative ideas should not be censored or squashed. it's natural to do so and creative ideas from even a thread of a subject can give possible clues to build on which can easily be changed later upon further evidence that may present itself. if we never did this, then most things in the world would not exist or be considered and everyone would shut down because they are afraid to be incorrect or aren't allowed to hypothesize since they may be incorrect.
Last edited:
LOL nice try, buddy.
Re-read to understand the absurdity of your statement.
"Speculations or ideas must stand up to scrutiny to further the discussion" I guess scrutiny is the subjective term here relative to what??
i know, it is absurd. exactly.
Believe what you want. I'm dead serious.
So you think we can throw ideas around a sci forum w/o having them scrutinized and you think that is absurd! Oh well.
.So you think we can throw ideas around a sci forum w/o having them scrutinized and you think that is absurd! Oh well.
no, it's that you keep ignoring that the subject matter can't be proven at this time. much of it can't be scrutinized beyond the point of, you got no proof. end of discussion. this is dismissal.
much of that subject matter is just relating people's experiences which are varied and interesting. it shows that there is still a lot we may not know. it's quite easy to just categorically say it is not real unless proven or all a hallucination.
really? i didn't know that. they are called hoaxes and there are plenty of examples which have been shown that they were. that still leaves experiences, rather than hoaxes, which can't all easily be dismissed away by hallucination. this is because we really don't know how reality is. there are so many different examples which give clues that all is not how we logically assume. these are ignored because people want to ignore them.
i posted an example of how a person may know that someone passed away thousands of miles away without anyone telling them that. they do not know how they know and neither does science. now that one example shows that there is a lot we don't know about how things are related, work or 'can' work.
I see. Please keep in mind that I just encountered "lulz" today, so I have not yet developed the rarefied sense of qualitative distinctions that a "lulz" connoisseur such as yourself possesses. I would imagine it takes years to hone this...
I haven't exactly been watching your posts from that perspective, however, I shall try to create a "lulz" scale and begin quantification. I will report back to you as soon as I have meaningful results...
True - part of the underlying rationale behind my point, actually.
And this differs from other forum sites how, exactly? Or real life for that matter... IMO there is a wealth of information here, the trick is mining it. Still, I would say the average banter on Sci is more intellectually stimulating than many other sites I have visited. Perhaps you have suggestions (links) to an online community whereby I might increase my knowledge at a higher pace?
Merely following in your footsteps, or perhaps taking your words at face value:"Also, I'd always been taught that it was redundant - and so, bad style - to point out that you are stating an opinion, in contexts where such should be obvious." I was just in a sort of "redundant" mood there and decided to clarify for you - since it's not your "style".
To the one, probably nothing. To the others, I would say yes. Except "bluster" of course, which is highly subjective. But if it makes you happy to characterize that post as such,than by all means continue...
You're not the only person here, Quad - others are reading these posts as well. You have now made the classic mistake of replying to a post which you deem has little value with another post of equal or lessor value. Congratulations. I still don't give a fuck.
Hostility? That's cute. If you can't take the heat...
Furthermore, I am anxiously awaiting the time when I actually get to interact with one of these "trolls" that are said to have infiltrated Sci. Maybe now...
Hmmm... Seems self evident to me... :shrug:
No, you really didn't.
Why? Do your posts generate some sort of synergy?
Ohhh - goody, more troll food. Did it occur to you that you share equal or more guilt by replying to me? You, my friend, are the one contending everyone on here is merely a "troll", remember. And, I do apologize if I am causing you to lose composure...
Each to their own, I guess.
True, however, I backed off that issue and asked that you start by defining "trolling", since it seems so prevalent here, at least in your view. Remember?
Nonetheless, I will settle for a good definition of either. As such definition is incorporated into your worldview, of course.
What friggin' definition? You haven't actually provided any beyond vague hand-waving, as I pointed out to you much, much earlier. You seem to want to rely solely on examples, within which you fail to point out any discrimination between "trolling" and "not trolling", lots of "lulz" or none at all. So no, I have no dispute with your definition, how can I? You won't provide one. You explicitly said "There's a reason I've chosen to be somewhat oblique about that issue" when asked for a definition. I was merely pointing out the inherent contradiction amongst your posts...
I would agree, but I still have no basis from which to assess your definition of trolling. Other than that "everyone does it".
Probably. Still doesn't provide a definition.
Yes, Sci is wonderful. Too bad your angst interferes with your ability to learn as well as troll.
In the eye of the beholder - apparently not, so far as you are concerned. Oh well. See, that's another example of that "hostility" you keep imposing upon me.
I do.
That is making an assumption...that there is a non-mechanical, non-observable, non-provable, yet absolutely real portion of the universe at all...
And that we aren't all engaging in collective delusion...which is one of the options.
If I had been provided conclusive proof of Deity and what Deity was like, or if if there is one...well, we would not be having this discussion.
But you do have a point: Deity (and all it might possibly entail) may or may not have any connection to any religion...
Your wording confused me-it seemed to imply that you thought there WAS one supernaturally-created religion.
Maybe Papaya is being dishonest when he mentions FSM...how do I know? People take the damndest things seriously. But I went and read the thread and I see him asking for answers...
If you think he's a troll, you know what to do, right?
Don't feed him. Stop arguing, let the thread drop.
Look I think you are absolutely right as I have had something amazing and unexplained happen to my brother and me and have been ridiculed on this very forum for trying to get explanation on physics thread. The double slit experiment may begin to answer what I experienced but not sure. For all intent and purpose my experience is still an unknown and all I can do is speculate at this time.
When we put these experiences out there for the world to see and share our ideas and speculations about the unknown we should expect the naysayers to dispute it with what is known, as they should. So when the naysayers find out the world is more marvelous than anyone of us could ever imagine, it is their minds that will be opened up to the endless possibilities and they too will begin to wonder. For most people the world needs to make sense and anything that does not they will disregard as a hoax or a hallucination of some kind.
So what if some are dismissive this should be an impetus for one to research their ideas further and offer alternatives to their dismissals. We should be able to discuss what cannot be explained without it being quashed and we also should expect skepticism but not ridicule. i have been guilty of the latter so for those I have offended I apologize.
So what more needs to be said?
*sigh*. that's the thing, they don't like alternative theories either. haven't you noticed? they are as warply closed-minded as a fundamental religionist with their current science. also, i think this is easy to say that one should research their ideas, why don't you do it then? it's like anyone that dares to even discuss the subject is the one who has to come up with some scientific proof when others don't even know there isn't one. it's kind of rich to say that when even you can't really do it, don't you think??
you don't get it. do you understand that there is only speculation or a building of a tentative hypothesis or theories? they want dead-end proof. there are no 'alternatives' except more speculation based on tentative theories which are unrelated traditionally to this type of phenomena and they ridicule that like the assholes they are though they think they got the whole of reality figured out already. they are as fixed and prejudiced about their scientific knowledge. they scoff at the idea of using any of those laws or knowledge to even try to form a hypothesis on some of these phenomena. it's not rote enough for them and it's not 'acceptable' to do that because this is all 'woowoo' to them. reality is all placed categorically to them. lol
Last edited:
What you constantly fail to notice is that these "alternative theories" have no grounding in anything other than sheer speculation.
Why should a "theory" that has no grounding in anything whatsoever be given credence?
No, it's folly to speculate on no basis. You might as well assign the whole thing to the work of 4.3 cm tall invisible pixies with a sense of humour.
And you persist in failing to understand.
None of those laws or knowledge was used in the formation of these "theories".
Still wrong.
i have a question: why are you stupid?
what makes you think there is no basis? do you think people are supposed to just ignore what they experience because science says it's not real at this time?? you might because you are a program.
your reply just means you don't want it discussed at all with anything but resounding dismissal that it's not legitimate. it's actually extremely rude (like science is a fuking god and knows it all even now), but you have the luxury of not stating it directly to those who have had experiences which they may not be able to dismiss themselves.
you know what makes people using your so-called logic stupid? it's your assumption that you are actually teaching me something. everything you've nitpicked with idiotic misplaced objectivity is something even i could do. it's damn fuking easy. it's easy to just use the empirical evidence argument. you think i'm not aware of it because you are self-deluded.
it's much harder to have an open mind about this subject and veer outside of rational logic for a bit to consider the possiblities but you and other arrogantly blind objectivity freaks (that makes us so shmart, we aren't dumb like you) like you think you are teaching me what i don't know which is really furthest from the truth. lmfao
Last edited:
I hope these magical experiences can be proved one day.
Another assumption.
It's quite simple: what has been put forward as "possible explanations" does not conform to anything we know nor anything that fits with what we know. If what we know is so wrong that the "explanations" proposed could work then what what we know doesn't work. Which is patently untrue.
And another example of how you fail to read the replies: the experience is not and has not been dismissed. The proposed "explanations however have and should be. MR (and you to an extent) appears to discount so many known things (human psychology for one) in order to claim that "Oh! Something weird is definitely happening and it's not explicable by ANYTHING we know". This is not a valid approach.
And you are still failing to see the point.
Again you show that you don't actually read replies to you. False, on at least two counts.
- Status