Tippaporn

You don't ask questions. Ever.

Religion offers much more than that and thus serves a greater purpose in the lives of those who follow it. It at least grants an individual purpose and worth in life. Science does neither. And no one, least of all the science types, considers the effects of teaching an entire world that there is no purpose in life, that one is no more than a leaf blowing in the wind with no control over their life's direction, that fulfilling their most heartfelt desires is a coin toss decided by chance, that their only value lies in their ability to breed, that life is nothing more than the survival of the fittest, that their emotions are due only to chemical interactions in their brains, that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, that a person's sex is not determined by biology but by their subjectivity, and perhaps the worst new fad in scientific thinking which postulates that personal choice is a mere defective mental illusion. And these same people then wonder how it is that the world slides into madness in so many respects. Dumb and dumber.

I can't believe you read my entire post and you're right back with your rote "rigorous scientific analysis" condition before others can believe it. I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything nor do I care whether or not they choose to accept any of the ideas I offer. The only thing of importance to me is that the ideas I hold to be true have practical application in my most practical life and work for me. Why the hell do I need science's blessings before I can use a practical idea that works? Science has it's view of reality. Science's ideas have undoubtedly manifested in some wondrous things. Great. I love it. I rejoice with science. But, since no one is ever right all of the time, and everyone has their imperfections then in those areas in which I disagree with science's ideas I will not rejoice with science but rather challenge them on their conclusions. Anything wrong with what I'm saying yet? On the other hand I am free enough to explore ideas in a way that science doesn't allow itself due to it's rigid "scientific method" approach. I'm smart enough to recognise the limitations of that approach. I find many ideas to be true and do not wait to put them to use until science sanctifies my findings which, again, may and probably never will come in my lifetime. Now I offer up different ideas here which taken together form a very different view of how reality works. I'll contrast that viewpoint with the other viewpoints here. Show me how your ideas work and I'll show you how mine work. What becomes painfully obvious very quickly is that with science so many theories that are even accepted as fact don't hold water. They can't be shown to work to any great detail. Again, how do you mesh freedom with evolution? You won't touch that. Neither will any other science minded person. Why? Because you can't. There is no place for individual freedom within the theory of evolution. Well, damn it, then it's bogus. Again, I offer a different, and in my honest opinion, a much more accurate view of reality than that which science or religion is able to offer. Not only is it accurate but it accounts for, as much as I can tell, everything. It doesn't omit obvious aspects of reality that science kicks to the gutter because it's a puzzle piece that they can't fit. Again, what blows me away is that both science and religious types won't even take the time to consider an ideas validity. That, to me, is rigid thinking. Setting boundaries for acceptable thought. Not a single idea residing on the outside of their paradigms gets in. I've said this before, the source of objective reality is subjective reality. Without subjective reality your precious physical could not exist. Do any of you even attempt to understand that concept? Are any of you inquisitive enough to ask questions as to why or how that would work? Hell no. It flies in the face of your protected view of reality and you dismiss it out of hand with the mechanical retort of, "prove it." Are you people truly inquisitive? I say no. I can meet common people on the street that are far more open minded than science types. Science types are another level of close minded thinkers perhaps even more so than the religious types. Try to at least ask some questions rather than simply standing on and defending your hallowed ground.

Sorry, not taking your bait, mikebike. Find someone else to troll.

Once more . . . The only thing i rail against with science minded folks is their rigidity of thinking. It truly is not different than the rigidity of religious thought. Both set their boundaries of acceptable thinking and no matter what you can't get them to venture outside of their boundaries. For the religion acolytes it's the word of God. Anything else they trash. For the science acolytes it's proof. No proof and it gets trashed. You see, Fat is a type of crazy, I've realised long ago that there is so much more . . . so much more . . . that lays outside of either of those two realms of limited thought and neither are expansive enough to contain all of that other information which exists. I simply cannot imprison myself like that. My personal propensity is to follow ideas and explore where they lead me, no matter where that brings me. Now this does not at all mean that I willy nilly believe in anything. Quite the contrary. For one an idea has to make sense. It has to have airtight logic. Most importantly it has to show that it's practically functional in the world. Show me an idea and then show me how it works in practical terms. If you can't then I'll reject it. But perhaps more important than any of the above considerations which must satisfy me it has to include everything. All must be accounted for. Freedom, for instance. You may disagree but freedom is the very basis of existence. All existence. A theory such as evolution does not account for freedom at all. Natural selection is a determinative force which does not allow for my freedom. I, the individual, have no say, no choice in my own experience. Natural selection decides for me. And according to religious belief it is God who decides for me. If you or anyone else is willing to construct and accept a reality in which the individual does not have the freedom to determine and create their own lives in every respect as they see fit through their choices in order to fulfill themselves then bless you, sir! But that is a reality I most strenuously reject to the marrow of my bones. My sole effort in engaging with those science minded folks is to get them to at least try and expand their thinking. For God's sake there is more to existence that what can be proven. To deny ones self the rest of reality because it falls outside of what has been or can be proven is a choice which is beyond ludicrous to me. I would never willingly confine myself to such a limited existence and experience. One last comment. Who the hell says that one cannot be science minded and at the same time follow unproven yet worthy ideas? I do both without a problem. And again, my time here is short. Too short to wait for the demands of science to prove my existence and my experience before I am allowed to accept it as real. Knowledge is everywhere and it's yours and everyone's for the taking. I'll take however much I can grab from wherever it exists.

My point is, which I think you're missing, is that every creature has something different to offer the world. Just because animals, or plants, can't offer what we as humans can doesn't mean that their contributions to the world are any less. Or even that they don't have the power to make the world a better place. They do. But the way they make the world a better place is different than the ways in which we can make the world a better (or worse) place. Ever see an animal of one species helping an animal of another? Go on YouTube. What "power" they have is simply different than what we have. I recall a video someone posted here a good while back. It was a behavioural scientist who was comparing chimps to humans. He was holding an experiment with the chimp and some children to see if the chimp could behave in a certain fashion comparable to the children. He then mentioned having an epiphany in which the sudden realisation dawned on him that chimps couldn't do what people can. I shook my head thinking of the money he had spent on the higher education he received in order to come to that conclusion.

I made the statement but didn't intend to imply that it was your meaning. Animals don't throw nuclear bombs because they know better. Animals contributions to the world are obviously different that ours. It's said that we are the thinking part of nature. That's our contribution. Or at least one of them.

If you're an avid reader try reading this. 1972 - Seth Speaks.pdf

My apologies if I have.

I admit I worded that badly. What I meant was science has not proven what happens to us when we die. That is what I intended to express. "But you'll need science to prove it to the rest of us." I like you, Fat is a type of crazy. So don't take this the wrong way. That's your problem, not mine. I could care less about what proof science demands. If science wishes to invalidate my experience because they don't have their required proof then again, that's their problem and I could care less. Science does not hold a monopoly on discerning reality properly. When you make a statement such as that it exposes your belief that science does indeed have a monopoly on what is true and what is not. Remember, too, that facts are relative to the reality in which they exist. But since I imagine that you believe in the existence of only a single, solitary reality . . . this one . . . then that pearl of wisdom is worthless to you. "Science doesn't prove absolutely - it says what is most likely based on evidence." Hey, that's exactly what I do! The difference between us is what science accepts as valid evidence and what I accept as valid evidence. Science, as with politics, too often excludes all of the evidence. They throw away the bits and parts they can't get to fit. As to theorising . . . many of science's theories are, and I know VincentRJ takes particular exception to this phrase, little more than scientific fairy tales. I laugh at theirs and they, and you, laugh at mine. I guess that puts us on equal footing?

Point taken. Hierarchy definition : any system of persons or things ranked one above another. There's no ranking in creation. Again, each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part. A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar. No ranking. "You have the power to make the world a better, or a worse place to live, more power than a bird or an elephant." I totally disagree based on what I wrote above. I give much more credit, and power, to the rest of nature to make this world a better place. The idea of "lowly" creatures is a false one.

Easy. What is your belief about death? We know science hasn't proven that one. But assuredly you have your own belief about what becomes of you, or not, at that moment.

You hit the nail on the head, Hummin. Each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part. A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar.

"However, hierarchies exist, . . . " No pecking orders. No top to bottom or bottom to top. Does the fact that different roles are played amongst group member give the impression that hierarchy is the absolute structure within all existence?

I'd have to disagree with you, mauGR1. Life is, basically, an expression of who we are. The form we take is neither here nor there. Human, animal, plant, whatever. Life is also about value fulfillment. Each creature, each life form, seeks it's own value fulfillment. Each life form finds within it's own environment everything it needs to fulfill itself according to it's own unique characteristics. One life form is neither higher or lower than another in terms of expression. A soul is gestalt consciousness. From that gestalt all life forms emerge. The greater you sends out portions of itself. These portions are individualised and each is eternally valid and free to pursue it's own fulfillment. Therefore there is no collective soul versus an individual soul. When you consider another creature's life as boring it is only from your perspective.

I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., which is why I am an Atheist. However, there are certain basic issues that don't require scientific confirmation. For example, humans have understood for ages, before the scientific method evolved, that sticking one's hand in a fire would cause extreme pain and damage. There are many other examples, such as jumping off a tall cliff onto the hard ground below, as opposed to jumping onto an ocean or lake. "My point is that everyone harbours as-yet-unproven-by-science beliefs about most everything; with many of those beliefs personally accepted as being true." Not everyone. "Would you agree that there are things you say you believe you know for sure?" I'm not sure 'believe' is the best word. I'd say there are things that I accept are true, with a high level of confidence. For example, if I were to drink a whole 750 ml bottle of whisky, I'm very confident I would get drunk. However, I wouldn't be totally, 100% sure, because there's a remote possibility that the bottle of whisky could be a fake with a very low alcohol content. ???? "I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., . . . " That statement is so fantastically unbelievable that I truly don't know how to respond. "Not everyone." I can only conclude that a) you're not human or 2) I'll bite my tongue. While we are all absolutely unique we do share commonalities. Physical traits such as a body, a heart, a lung. Those kinds of things. Psychological traits would be feelings, imagination, creativity . . . thoughts. The definition of a belief is a thought that is much repeated. Are you trying to convince me that every single belief you hold is confirmed by science? Excuse me but I have to pick my jaw off the floor right now.

"The concepts of 'reason' and 'purpose' are human constructs and thought processes." One of the worst aspects of science, in my opinion, is given in your statement. You don't believe in reasons for being or, I suspect, any purpose to life. Only cause and effect. The world you describe is sterile. Lifeless. We're only here to breed? Is that it? Really? Reason and purpose are found everywhere. How is it that you're able to blind yourself from such obviousness? Tell me honestly that all of the actions you take in life are for no reason and serve no purpose to you. What, are they all random? The "accident" in which the guy who slid into the car in front of him caused him to miss his plane. Later that evening he learned the plane went down and all aboard died. I already know how you'll respond. That's not "proof" that the accident spared his life and so served a purpose for him. What an outlandish idea! There's so much more to life than you are willing to admit. Sometimes I get the feeling that your myopic views are meant to keep you safe from exploring the vast unknown. "An asteroid is not a living organism." Energy: Energy is the basis of the Universe. The same "stuff" that we are composed of is the same "stuff" the asteroid is composed of. There is nothing which exists which is "dead." Only to your current awareness, though. Attempting to personify that form of life would be a mistake. What's the reality of a virus like? A cell? An asteroid?

Take your pick, dude. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Church+burned&atb=v314-1&ia=web It's too easy to find info. I do know what you're on about.

People retaliate when they feel threatened. There are too many reports to list of the attacks on Christianity. Spirituality? Nah. Not a threat. We're good.

"I'll be happy to see you debate with them." Answer me this riddle: How do you debate without a free flow of information? Here's another riddle: How is it possible for someone to reach a correct conclusion when they do not look at all of the available information? And just a simple question: What is propaganda? I'll add a bonus question: How capable are you at recognising propaganda? All of the above can apply to this topic as well.

I'm about caught up with responding to replies, I think. Fortunately I've noticed, however, that my post count for today totals 13. That's an unlucky number. It could be as fateful as crossing paths with a black cat. I can't take the chance of that causing some sort of fluke accident to befall me. So even though I've nothing more to say there is, coincidentally, an idea that popped into my head of what I can use for this 14th post. Boy, what are the odds of that? Thanks be to Providence! The Beatles with Across The Universe off of their final '70 Let It Be album. Happy travels fellow star trippers. Say "hello" to God for me if any of you happen to run across him/her/it. And look for me in your telescope, VincentRJ. I'll be the brightest thing you'll see in the heavens, waving back atcha.

You wrote a long post, VincentRJ, and I appreciate it. It deserves more of a response. I'm happy to hear that you, too, demand that things make sense. I think all of us here prefer that. The comment I'd like to make regarding science's proofs, theories and hypotheses and their glacial march to the "truth" of it all is that for most of us we have a limited amount of time in this world. The pace at which science advances (not counting the number of steps they walk back) will mean that if we were to wait for science to figure life out our great-great-great-(to the power of 100's? 1,000's ?)-grand kids will have long been dead and buried. We don't have the luxury of time that science has. As far as the revised Big Bang theory that changed from the universe being created from nothingness to that of a small, indescribably condensed ball have you considered the medium in which this unbelievably (excuse the pun) compressed, universe-containing ball existed? Was that medium nothingness? And if it existed in nothingness was the nothingness larger than the universe which was ejected from this explosion? For it had to expand to somewhere, I would think. Maybe, if you allow me, I can assist in coming up with a hypothesis. This ball existed on the other side of a black hole and emerged out of it. Sounds sensible? Or maybe a white hole? I'm rather leaning towards a plaid hole, as was proven in the movie Spaceballs that things can go plaid when things approach Ludicrous Speed. Also, have scientists calculated the size of this ball? Beach ball sized? Football sized? Golf ball sized? Pin head sized? Just joking. Sorry, VincentRJ, I couldn't help but poke some fun. Getting back to utmost, deadly, Thai despised seriousness, you ask, "Addressing another of your points that I've highlighted above, 'what do you mean by a physical reality'?" Physical reality is what we term as objective reality. The same objective reality which science deals with. Within the post to which you replied is a mention of mine alluding to realities which are not physically based; or non-objective. Matter, as we know it, does not exist there. Nor space. Nor time. If that state of being, or existence, is difficult to imagine then I'd ask you to consider subjective reality. Time can be stretched or condensed. Feelings, for instance, are not physical. Nor are dreams. Or ideas. Or consciousness itself (which is why I have to laugh at those ultra smart folks who, in their delusional desire to cheat the Grim Reaper, believe they can "upload" their consciousness to a computer when they haven't even a clue as to the location of their consciousness). I've said it before and I'll repeat myself in case you've either missed it or forgotten it; consciousness creates form and not the other way around. Physical reality is one such form. And the various forms are literally infinite. And one last comment. You wrote, "However, such claims can be no more than a hypothesis, or a belief, or a Quale, until they are verified using the 'methodology of science'." Again, I'll remind you that for those folks who would like their answers sometime before their future unborn are stardust then we'll go it alone without waiting an eternity, if ever, for science to provide those answers.

I take your reaction as a hard pass.

A very nice post expressing the love and gusto for life. Hat's off to you, Hummin. May all your landings be safe (and they are even when they're not).

We are free to be here. Or not. That is our choice. That much should be clear. Every reality has it boundaries. These are accepted. But within those boundaries exist the means and the freedom to create anything we wish. The extent of our freedom in this reality is not well known (and again I'm donning my Cheshire cat grin as I write that). I can say that it is much vaster than most are aware of. But again, there are boundaries. You cannot, for example, lose a limb and regenerate it. Thought is indeed free. But, and this is imperatively important, it does come with consequences. Always. That is something that one cannot get around. It is true to say, therefore, that justice is always being served. Not in the hereafter but in the here and now. You cannot avoid the reality that you yourself create.