why do you worship Gods?

[mis-t-highs]

near death experiences, are just delirium.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SkinWalker,

Incontrovertable information from "beyond." Information that could only come from someone who "passed;"

That would be factual, we are talking about evidence.

A measurement of a consciousness transitioning from this existance to the next;

There are loads of this type of evidence.

a measurement or empirical observation of the "next realm" of existance; etc.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Strawman argument... I'll skip it.

Since when did a question become an argument?

The scientific method is all that there is to empirically observe or experience reality.

That is your opinion, albeit dogmatic.

Any speculations beyond that are simply fantasy: real only in the minds of those that speculate.

I am not of that opinion.

If this is something you have little problem believing in and it helps you exist before death, so be it. I maintain, however, that the vast majority of believers in some "continued existance," including yourself, believe as much because they are unwilling to accept the probability that the observable universe is all that there is or will be for them.

Your analysis and conclusion are just opinions. My question still stands; How do you know there is no life after death?

So it was, indeed, a request to prove a negative... that "life after death" doesn't exist.

That wasn't the question. The question was; How do you know there is no life after death? The fact that you know is positive, it means you have knowledge. Please share that knowledge.

I sincerely hope that there is some existance beyond what I can observe and measure,.....

How could such a thing be measured without actually having the experience yourself or trusting the very similar accounts of hundreds of people?

but I won't waste one minute of this life expecting that it be so, and I certainly won't live my days as if I get a better existance if I follow some basic rules....

Then don't.

Where else would such a revelation in human physiology be found? It is one of the premiere journals of its class? If it isn't in NEJM, then where?

Physiology studies living matter. Since when did the mind and consciousness become living matter?

But then we're talking about Near Death Experiences......

....But none of this creates any thing more than speculation about the nature of NDE or OBE as phenomena that are more than side effects of normal brain activity.

Read Link provided.

Then the memories are supplanted by visualizations the brain creates... our brains are quite good at this after all.

Is this the result of a NDE had by yourself, or are you copying what other people say?

Admittedly, there are a lot of holes in Grof's work, especially since babies are typically born with their eyes closed and don't see the birth cannal... and, Grof's subjects were experimenting with LSD, which creates its own hallucinations rather than drawing on memories.

Well there you go then.

Biochemical and neurophysiological causes are the most likely causes of NDE and OBE. Certain alkaloids like belladonna can trigger hallucinations of flying,...

So in short, you're not sure.
Right?
But yet you know there is no life after death.
How do you know this?

Therefore, there must be natural equivalents that are produced by the body under certain circumstances. Perhaps NDE and OBE are as easily explained as natural trips induced by traumatic event (i.e. death).

Let's say you are right. How do you know that is not the process at the time of death? How do you know that what you term as natural trips is not reality and what we see as reality are natural hallucinations on a grand scale?

Add to this the notion that most people in Western society have been exposed to the Judeo-Christian idea of heaven and god. The mind has a way of filling in the gaps when it goes into hallucination.

NDE cannot be cited as any sort of evidence for a "continuation of existance."

I disagree.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Athelwulf,

Haha! Yes you are.

How so?

Near-death experiences don't make very good evidence for an afterlife.

Why not?

Jan Ardena.

 

[SkinWalker]

That would be factual, we are talking about evidence.

And they are exclusive of each other?

There are loads of this type of evidence.

Right. Apparently nothing even near convincing, since you are unable to cite a major medical journal.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Sabom still relies heavily on anecdotal account and refuses to acknowlege basic cultural facts, such as even his "non-believer" subjects were raised in a judeo-christian culture, exposing them to all the related mythologies.

That is your opinion [about the scientific method being all there is to "knowing"], albeit dogmatic.

What other ways of "knowing" exist. Scientific method is all there is. Fantasizing and speculating is not "knowing."

I am not of that opinion [that speculation is fantasy].

From where, then, does the knowlege originate?

Your analysis and conclusion are just opinions. My question still stands; How do you know there is no life after death?

My analyses and conclusions are observations. When I'm wrong, its because I failed to observe something or inferred an observation incorrectly. Perhaps I did so with regard to NDE, but you certainly haven't demonstrated it. But since you obviously want me to say it, I will: I don't know that NDE isn't real or that life of sorts continues after death. But nor do I know for sure that fairies, werewolves, and unicorns do not exist. I suspect even you are skeptical of these fantasies, but the represent the same problem as NDE: a concept that cannot be disproven.

How could such a thing be measured without actually having the experience yourself or trusting the very similar accounts of hundreds of people?

Indeed. Which is why I give it little credance. My only interest in the subject is in how it plays on the belief systems of other people and their cultures.

Physiology studies living matter. Since when did the mind and consciousness become living matter?

Its all chemicals, neurons, synapses, axions and channels for calcium, potassium, etc. All physiology.

Read Link provided.

I saw nothing but continued speculation and anecdote... there was nothing there that could not have other explanations, including the possibility that a surgen was being very explicit to students/juniors in a technique which was overheard by Reynolds.

Is this the result of a NDE had by yourself, or are you copying what other people say?

You get off on the strawman thing, eh? I gave my sources of information in the other post.

Well there you go then.
So in short, you're not sure.
Right?
But yet you know there is no life after death.
How do you know this?

The strawman thing again... But I'll indulge this time. I won't rule out NDE, but there's no convincing/conclusive evidence to suggest that its a real event. There is far too much bias, even among those that profess to research the subject, due to their judeo-christian cultures to accept the notion without some testable evidence.

Let's say you are right. How do you know that is not the process at the time of death? How do you know that what you term as natural trips is not reality and what we see as reality are natural hallucinations on a grand scale?

How do you know that it is?

I disagree.

Of course. Your belief system and supertitious nature wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[duendy]

neither would yours. you are ignore-ant, and in denial, if you believe your science and the scientific method isn't supersitious

the socalled scientific methods central mode of perATION cuts out sensual experience. ie., it quanticizes. ANYthing its microscopic eye cany measure is 'not real'

i say BS to your religion mate.

having said that, of course it has its uses..as a TOOL. not as a flippin religion which is what you and others like you are doing. trying to disenfranchize ANY other kind of experience if its not sancitified by your blessed science method dogma. cant you SEE this?

one thing i agree with you on. where you say how NDE experiences are influenced by one's belief systems. true. though it has been shown that staunch athiests have had experiences ot total churchy shit. so watch out! hehe
but yes. i believe this. but this DOESN'Y discount actual spiritual reality. ie., a deeper feeling of matter-energy. for i dont believe in a split between spirit/consciousness and matter-energy

 

[SkinWalker]

i say BS to your religion mate.

That science is a religion is merely a fallacy perpetrated by those that believe that their belief system is threatened by science. Emotional attachments to conclusions that science says are bunk or unconfirmed leads to resentment... The outcry of oppression is a useful tool in obtaining or securing unity among the believers of a faith or cult and its a useful tool in securing empathy among peers who also have their separate belief systems and superstitions threatened by science.

The irony is, science is concerned only with the truth, whilst belief systems are concerned with maintaining their beliefs, even to the extent that contrary evidence is ignored or rejected as unholy, blasphemous, propeganda, or "spin." If the truth were to support a belief system, then believers go out of their way to embrace that small, portion of science. Even if that bit of science is inconclusive, tentative, or demonstrated to be false (see Jan's link to NDE).

Hume said it best: all knowlege and reason are a result of observation and induction. Therefore, nothing can be known without first being observed or experienced. What's in question with the NDE issue is whether or not those experiences were NDE or whether there exist other possibilities. As I pointed out above, there are.

I'm not saying that scientists are always right or every thing they say is true... they are as fallible as the rest of humanity. But for any question that has observable events, science is the only method of getting an answer.

Science is not a religion. It has no supernatural or paranormal components, nor do its members rely on faith alone to support conclusions, nor do its members conduct rituals for the sake of pleasing or worshiping a deity; indeed, there is no deity involved.

But I expect those that feel threatened by the truth of science will continue to implicate science as everybit as silly as their own superstions, cults, and beliefs.

 

[duendy]

That science is a religion is merely a fallacy perpetrated by those that believe that their belief system is threatened by science.

D)))) one can say the same about YOUR religion. That if anything threatens its surities, like unexplainable phenomena, including spiritual experience people may have--which people like yourselves label 'anecdotal'--then you all get JUSt as dogmatical as any fundy on the block.

Emotional attachments to conclusions that science says are bunk or unconfirmed leads to resentment...

D)))haha. i think you are the type that cries 'bunk' while the more openminded scientists will say 'we don't know'. the latter is the one i respect the most, and probably is the more truly scientific attitude!

The outcry of oppression is a useful tool in obtaining or securing unity among the believers of a faith or cult and its a useful tool in securing empathy among peers who also have their separate belief systems and superstitions threatened by science.

D))) Oppression is a good term. The fundamental use of mechansitic science is THe most oppressive, and toxic religion that have ever befallen humankind!

The irony is, science is concerned only with the truth, whilst belief systems are concerned with maintaining their beliefs, even to the extent that contrary evidence is ignored or rejected as unholy, blasphemous, propeganda, or "spin."

D))) As i have tried to explain, even to people who will not listen, i am not part of a fundamentalist religious cult. but i CAN see how your understanding of science is cultic in your manner of beliving you KNOW it is 'the truth'. why don't you add 'only through my door can you come to the truth' like the mythical Jesus. might as well

If the truth were to support a belief system, then believers go out of their way to embrace that small, portion of science. Even if that bit of science is inconclusive, tentative, or demonstrated to be false (see Jan's link to NDE).

Have YOU ever had an NDE, or any other 'big experience' (a powerful experience that you cant explain)? yes, no?...if no, then what you say is purely theoretical isn't it. you haven't actually done the experiment

Hume said it best: all knowlege and reason are a result of observation and induction. Therefore, nothing can be known without first being observed or experienced. What's in question with the NDE issue is whether or not those experiences were NDE or whether there exist other possibilities. As I pointed out above, there are.

D))) fine. you are in a state of 'we don't really know' aren't you? so why not admit it, instead of creating a 'truth' dogma?

I'm not saying that scientists are always right or every thing they say is true... they are as fallible as the rest of humanity. But for any question that has observable events, science is the only method of getting an answer.

D)) like i also say, it is a tool. see it as that. dont try and explain everything away through that means.

Science is not a religion. It has no supernatural or paranormal components, nor do its members rely on faith alone to support conclusions, nor do its members conduct rituals for the sake of pleasing or worshiping a deity; indeed, there is no deity involved.

D))) you deity is the 'scientific method. the one that Galileo--father of modern science -defined as leaving OUT sensual experience. your deity thus becomes spiritless 'physica'!...are you with me. you have created A religion that BELIEVEs matter is 'dead'. one could call it nihilisticism

But I expect those that feel threatened by the truth of science will continue to implicate science as everybit as silly as their own superstions, cults, and beliefs.

i am not threatened. i am rather seeing THROUGH the BS. unlike you i am not a science-worshipper. i see its uses, ANd its dangers -when seen as the 'TRUTH' and nuthin but

 

[SkinWalker]

i am not threatened. i am rather seeing THROUGH the BS. unlike you i am not a science-worshipper. i see its uses, ANd its dangers -when seen as the 'TRUTH' and nuthin but

Sure you are. Science threatens to negate and unwrap the spiritual fantasies you twisted yourself into and called reality, therefore you attmempt to implicate "science" as a "religion," because your own spiritual fantasies run contrary the them as well.

Better to lump your enemies into one definition than to have deal with them all on different terms.

"Science is a religion" is merely a cop out or a phrase you use to troll those that are passionate for science. But rather than address any of my points, you simply choose to quote my post and attempt to offend me by calling me a "science worshipper."

 

[Jan Ardena]

SkinWalker,

And they are exclusive of each other?

They are connected, but not the same thing.

Sabom still relies heavily on anecdotal account

Because by all accounts Pam Reynolds was dead, but recalled events that occured, descibed objects, and and heard the teams conversation, while in this state.

and refuses to acknowlege basic cultural facts, such as even his "non-believer" subjects were raised in a judeo-christian culture, exposing them to all the related mythologies.

I not aware of any similar NDE's in any judeo-christian scriptures. Can you cite any?

What other ways of "knowing" exist. Scientific method is all there is. Fantasizing and speculating is not "knowing."

That is a very poor argument (if it can be called such)

From where, then, does the knowlege originate?

Who says knowledge originates from anywhere?

I don't know that NDE isn't real or that life of sorts continues after death.

You still haven't answered my question; How do you know there is no life after death?

But nor do I know for sure that fairies, werewolves, and unicorns do not exist. I suspect even you are skeptical of these fantasies, but the represent the same problem as NDE: a concept that cannot be disproven.

No they don't. NDE's are real to the people who experience them, and to some people who experience people experiencing them.

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
How could such a thing be measured without actually having the experience yourself or trusting the very similar accounts of hundreds of people?
How could such a thing be measured without actually having the experience yourself or trusting the very similar accounts of hundreds of people?


Indeed. Which is why I give it little credance.

Then you're just blocking it out because a)
you don't believe it to be true, or b) you don't want to believe it is true, so you bury your head in the sand. Either way you are not being scientific, but yet you swear by the scientific method. Sabom is simply interested in finding the truth, and that particular case has made a good start on that journey.

My only interest in the subject is in how it plays on the belief systems of other people and their cultures.

And how does it?

Its all chemicals, neurons, synapses, axions and channels for calcium, potassium, etc. All physiology.

So what is the mind made of?

I saw nothing but continued speculation and anecdote... there was nothing there that could not have other explanations, including the possibility that a surgen was being very explicit to students/juniors in a technique which was overheard by Reynolds.

But the fact that it could be true makes it worthwhile pursiuing.

You get off on the strawman thing, eh? I gave my sources of information in the other post.

It's not strawman, i want to know how you know there is no life after death.

The strawman thing again... But I'll indulge this time. I won't rule out NDE, but there's no convincing/conclusive evidence to suggest that its a real event.

Again you have misjudged, i want to know how you come your knowledge of life after death. There is no strawman.

There is far too much bias, even among those that profess to research the subject, due to their judeo-christian cultures to accept the notion without some testable evidence.

Please give a proper reason, this is just your personal opinion.

How do you know that it is?

I don't. But you seem to know. I am merely asking how.

Of course. Your belief system and supertitious nature wouldn't have it any other way.

Let's not get into any personal accusations, you don't know me and i don't know you. Keep to the point.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Ophiolite]

your deity is the 'scientific method.

This really is stretching language to breaking point. If you mean this metaphorically, then this is a poetic, but pointless comparison. If you mean it literally it is fatuous nonsense. Are you just spouting words that you think sound good or did you mean something by this?

 

[scorpius]

How do you know there is no life after death?

how could,.. there be?
living things breathe dead dont,once the body dies,and decomposes wtf is there to live???
to live you need to eat,drink,without food the body dies and becomes just a bunch of chemicals,elements.
if you think there are some souls
floating around once the body dies,youre just not seeing reality.

NDEs are just brain shortcircuiting b/c of lack of oxygen.making people see things that arent there(memories)just like when you dream when sleeping.
doesnt that feel very real sometimes?

some people believe that soul is the mind,
Id like to know then, how come brain dead people such as Alzheimers sufferers or accident victims who are in a coma lose all their personality,become total vegetables,and cannot think.

cannt be soul there!!

 

[scorpius]

you are ignore-ant, and in denial,

actualy religious people are the ignorant ones,

if you believe your science and the scientific method isn't supersitious

I KNOW it aint
look up the word SUPERSTITIOUS in a dictionary sometimes!

the socalled scientific methods central mode of perATION cuts out sensual experience.

how would you know?are you a scientist?

ANYthing its microscopic eye cany measure is 'not real'

exactly therefore NO GOD!!

i say BS to your religion mate.

now look up the definition of the word RELIGION!!

it has been shown that staunch athiests have had experiences ot total churchy shit.

yes we know churches/religions are full of shit

but this DOESN'Y discount actual spiritual reality. ie., a deeper feeling of matter-energy. for i dont believe in a split between spirit/consciousness and matter-energy

ok now prove this spiritual reality.why dont you?

 

[SkinWalker]

Because by all accounts Pam Reynolds was dead, but recalled events that occured, descibed objects, and and heard the teams conversation, while in this state.

Obviously she wasn't that dead. Neural activity was apparently still occuring in the brain and auditory input was still being processed. If, indeed, the events she described genuinely occurred.

I not aware of any similar NDE's in any judeo-christian scriptures. Can you cite any?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The non-believer subjects raised in judeo-christian cultures is relative in that their accounts of NDE fit the cultural expectations of "heavenly light" and other related nonsense. The people that Sabom followed for years all reported that they were no longer afraid of dying, that they no longer mourned for loved ones that had passed, etc. They clearly believed that some form of "heaven" or and "afterlife" awaited. That some of these people were non-religious or non-believers prior to the NDE is inconsquential since they were raised in a judeo-xian culture where such beliefs are accepted norms.

That is a very poor argument [that fantasizing and speculating are not ways of "knowing"] (if it can be called such)

Really? What other ways of "knowing" exist beyond the scientific method?

You still haven't answered my question; How do you know there is no life after death?

I did answer your question. You obviously aren't interested in reading the words of someone with whom you disagree. I'll quote: "I don't know that NDE isn't real or that life of sorts continues after death. But nor do I know for sure that fairies, werewolves, and unicorns do not exist. I suspect even you are skeptical of these fantasies, but the[y] represent the same problem as NDE: a concept that cannot be disproven."

No they don't. NDE's are real to the people who experience them, and to some people who experience people experiencing them.

I'll agree with that. NDE's are real to those that experience them. But the NDE effect is one of chemistry, not the supernatural. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease ran a peer-reviewed paper on the subject of NDE in which the author (Greyson, 1983) examined the effects of oxygen deprivation on the brain. It was found that the affect of oxygen starvation on volunteers can produce the "tunnel" sensations, and the bright or white lights. The sensations of movement (floating, flying, etc.) are also easily explained and should be expected, since oxygen starvation is a common cause of brain malfunction... in otherwords, the brain misinterprets the sensory input that it gets from the body.

These are all things we can measure, examine, observe and record. Nothing regarding the so-called afterlife can be.

So do I "know for sure" that there's no "afterlife?" No. Of course not. But I said that a couple posts back. What I do know is that the human brain is a delicate chemistry set, any imbalance causes all sorts of problems for people who are conscious, why wouldn't we believe that chemical imbalances while unconscious won't have similar effects?

Then you're just blocking it out because a)
you don't believe it to be true, or b) you don't want to believe it is true, so you bury your head in the sand. Either way you are not being scientific, but yet you swear by the scientific method.

What I was responding to most was "trusting very similar accounts of hundreds of people." I've no doubt that these people experience something. What I doubt is that what they experience is what they believe. The reason is as I described above, not simply because I "don't believe it to be true." And, as I stated in an earlier post, I want it to be true that there is an afterlife. There's just nothing to indicate that the NDE phenomenon is the evidence.

Sabom is simply interested in finding the truth, and that particular case has made a good start on that journey.

If his motives are true, then I agree. But simply being a researcher and a cardiologist isn't reason enough to discount the possibility that he is biased by his own belief system and that he is conducting bad science. It does happen.

And how does it [play on the belief systems of other people and their cultures]?

That would be another thread.
And will probably be an anthropological paper that I'll end up writing.

So what is the mind made of?

Neurons, chemicals, fatty tissues, proteins, etc. What else?

But the fact that it could be true makes it worthwhile pursiuing.

Not really. 1)The probability of NDE being evidence for some sort of afterlife is extremely low in light of physiological possibilities. 2) If #1 weren't true, what good would pursuing the notion do? What proof could ever be obtained?

It's not strawman, i want to know how you know there is no life after death.

No... its a strawman, particularly since I already answered the question two posts back or so.

 

[duendy]

Sure you are. Science threatens to negate and unwrap the spiritual fantasies you twisted yourself into and called reality, therefore you attmempt to implicate "science" as a "religion," because your own spiritual fantasies run contrary the them as well.

d__Animism is far older than mechanistic science. as you know, animism is the insight of enspirited matter. People's religions used to include the ecstatic appreciation of this through various means of activating a deeper sense of their interconnection with Nature, reality.
First patriarchal religion arrives and demonizes this PLAY.....then science via Galileo throws THAt out, and then eventually even the idea of a sky daddy--which was false anyhow. and now we got a SPIRITLESS world. THAt is YOUR religion. you WANT that? where everything is merely chemicals--not that i've got anything against chemicals mind. some of my best friends are chemicals

Better to lump your enemies into one definition than to have deal with them all on different terms.

d__cant remember the context this comes from but err.....no, i know how to differentiate my enimeis ta


"Science is a religion" is merely a cop out or a phrase you use to troll those that are passionate for science. But rather than address any of my points, you simply choose to quote my post and attempt to offend me by calling me a "science worshipper."

oh, yeah, you are not offensive whatsoever, are you? That is about as real as your religion

 

[duendy]

actualy religious people are the ignorant ones,

D___No, i meant that term very precisely. ie., ignore-ant. the whole ethos of scientific method is IGNORING sensuality, and ethics, and aesthetics, as originally defined by the father of modern science, Galileo

I KNOW it aint
look up the word SUPERSTITIOUS in a dictionary sometimes!

d___"false worship....." is the first defininition, and that's what i am accusing mechanistic science of. it is a very ugly worship of 'deadness', that has and is causing untold misery for all species, and generally fukin up very Nature itself!

how would you know?are you a scientist?

D__SEE? see how dogmatic you are? this is just the attitude a churchian would have regarding one's right to criticize their religion. 'How do YOU know, are you a CHRISTIAN"?...same old....

exactly therefore NO GOD!!

D____plese describe what you mean by 'God' as precisly as you can, then we can discuss.

now look up the definition of the word RELIGION!!

D__oh shit, what Is this? dictionary class?....its basic meaning is 'to bind togther'...so one can see you 'scientists' in your little or big club yeah, shouting the odds. protecting your religion from assault. just like other religions

yes we know churches/religions are full of shit

pardon)))))))))))))))))?
ok now prove this spiritual reality.why dont you?

OK, pass me that microscope a minute, and that test tube. right iggledy piddledy puddledy doo....we got a right one here, and he finks what he finks is true

 

[duendy]

This really is stretching language to breaking point. If you mean this metaphorically, then this is a poetic, but pointless comparison. If you mean it literally it is fatuous nonsense. Are you just spouting words that you think sound good or did you mean something by this?

D__we know you love language. it must really break yer heart to leave a SENTENCE.

actually, usually what i type i mean. though ihave off days

'scientific method' Is a religion when it is taken as sacrosanct and is used to explain all of life and all unexplainable phenomena.
REAL scientists...that i RESPECT, aren't so cocksure about things they don't know about. they DO exist you know, though you may not have bumped into many. not my fault. get out more!

 

[Ophiolite]

D__we know you love language. it must really break yer heart to leave a SENTENCE

Pardon! What does that mean? Yes, I love language. I don't believe that is something to be ashamed of, rather the reverse. Language is not uniquely human, yet it is integral to what we are. It should be celebrated. Language is one of the most powerfull tools we have. If these beliefs come across in my posts, then I am delighted. You seem to wish to demean this love of language. I'm not sure why.

actually, usually what i type i mean. though ihave off days
'scientific method' Is a religion when it is taken as sacrosanct and is used to explain all of life and all unexplainable phenomena.
REAL scientists...that i RESPECT, aren't so cocksure about things they don't know about. they DO exist you know, though you may not have bumped into many. not my fault. get out more!

Your original statement I took exception to was your deity is the 'scientific method'. Now you are changing your stance. Now it seems this only applies to bad scientists. (It is only a religion when it is taken as sacrosanct.) These are the ones who are cocksure about things they don't know about.
Someone who breaks the law is not a law-abiding citizen. A scientist who does not follow scientific principles is de facto not a scientist. If you wish to say the deity of bad or pseudo scientists is the misapplication of 'scientific method', that I can agree with. Your original statement remains at odds with your later remarks and with reality.

So, would you care to name some Real Scientists?

And would you especially stop attributing untenable views to me, which you then denigrate. The approach is small minded, transparent and unhelpful. I think you might wish to rise above that.
Specifically - any proper scientist will naturally recognise the boundaries of his or her knowledge. Your remarks quoted above imply that I do not subscribe to this view. You then castigate me for not accepting it. That is somewhat arrogant and decidedly offensive. Attack me and my views as much as you wish but I would rather you not indulge in such shoddy tricks as attacking me for views I do not hold.

 

[duendy]

Pardon! What does that mean? Yes, I love language. I don't believe that is something to be ashamed of, rather the reverse. Language is not uniquely human, yet it is integral to what we are. It should be celebrated. Language is one of the most powerfull tools we have. If these beliefs come across in my posts, then I am delighted. You seem to wish to demean this love of language. I'm not sure why.

d___i was teasing you. of course i VERY VERy VEY much lknow--am exploring rather--the power of language. on many levels. not least in how its use actually influences how we experience reality

Your original statement I took exception to was your deity is the 'scientific method'. Now you are changing your stance. Now it seems this only applies to bad scientists. (It is only a religion when it is taken as sacrosanct.) These are the ones who are cocksure about things they don't know about.

d__ Yes i mean that. That when the scientific method is used to presume that any alternative experience 'must' be false cause the SM hasn't measured it, then it is dependent on its own set-up criteria FOR accepting other forms of experience, and even underSTANding other forms of experience
But wiat. i am in the process of even questioning the scientific method itself. i have shown you a quote about how Galileo-father of modern science-had defined the scientific method of having to leave QUALITy out (have you seen the quote i have sent several times here)--sensual reality, feeling and so on, and that in post-Galilean all ethical sensibility has gone too. so i am really exploring whether it is more trouble than its worth. it has made a toxic dump of our planet. but you know, the ones who have to LIVe be the mkost toxic aren't the clever scientists, oh no, it is poor people non-white people, Native american people. The precious scientific method done killed soul. so it needs a good lookin at!

Someone who breaks the law is not a law-abiding citizen.

d__so, what does that mean? wjho MAKEs the law? law abiding people? was Bush and Blair 'law-abiding' when they started that Iraqi war ILLEGALLY?.....and there is so much corruptio carried out be the elite who seem to feel they are above the law. much of the law is a complete ARSE...and i dont mean Ass. It is made by industrial fasicists to keep its slaves in line

A scientist who does not follow scientific principles is de facto not a scientist. If you wish to say the deity of bad or pseudo scientists is the misapplication of 'scientific method', that I can agree with. Your original statement remains at odds with your later remarks and with reality.

d__ only in your mind. I stand by what i say. The people of the scientific method see it asTHe new religion. They strut about like they own the universe. they march into Indigenous peoples lands, who were quite minding their own business, and then are crushed. JUSt like other patriarchal religions crushed other peoples they felt superior too. why do i have to explain this to you?

So, would you care to name some Real Scientists?

Fritjof Capra...checkout 'Ecoliteracy'

And would you especially stop attributing untenable views to me, which you then denigrate. The approach is small minded, transparent and unhelpful. I think you might wish to rise above that.
Specifically - any proper scientist will naturally recognise the boundaries of his or her knowledge. Your remarks quoted above imply that I do not subscribe to this view. You then castigate me for not accepting it. That is somewhat arrogant and decidedly offensive. Attack me and my views as much as you wish but I would rather you not indulge in such shoddy tricks as attacking me for views I do not hold.

Actually your manner to is quite in-the-face.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, since you seem to expect an in-the-face response, tough.

"The people of the scientific method see it asTHe new religion. They strut about like they own the universe. they march into Indigenous peoples lands, who were quite minding their own business, and then are crushed. JUSt like other patriarchal religions crushed other peoples they felt superior too. why do i have to explain this to you?"

Humbug. Who are "the people of the scientific method"? Who is doing this strutting and marching? Not any scientists I know of. You are so consumed by your 'patriarchy is evil' agenda you have lost sight of logic and misdirected your passion.

And being in=your=face is quite different from fabricating opinions for an opponent then attacking them.

 

[duendy]

Well, since you seem to expect an in-the-face response, tough.

d__Hah...well the confession is in the reply init? and NO, i am not 'expectin' it, i am 'GETTIN' it!

"The people of the scientific method see it asTHe new religion. They strut about like they own the universe. they march into Indigenous peoples lands, who were quite minding their own business, and then are crushed. JUSt like other patriarchal religions crushed other peoples they felt superior too. why do i have to explain this to you?"

Humbug.

d___hmmmmmm, now WHOOOO do you remind me of??

Who are "the people of the scientific method"?

d__go look in ze mirror

Who is doing this strutting and marching? Not any scientists I know of. You are so consumed by your 'patriarchy is evil' agenda you have lost sight of logic and misdirected your passion.

d__ no, my faculties are all still alright thanks. Have you heard of the term 'PARADIGM' by any remote chance?

And being in=your=face is quite different from fabricating opinions for an opponent then attacking them.

oh, stop being so ruddy sensitive for ..'s sake. your whole MANNEr is 'attackin'