Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There was a lot of push and pull involved. 

I can believe that, 2 polarities ( creation, destruction) and a point of equilibrium (preservation). ????

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Thats brave, and reminded me of this one

 

not that you are a fool, and I do not call you a fool, but still somehow I wantedcto argue with you, but I know you believe you are 100% in control of your self, your thoughts and your feelings, so no need to argue with you, to try to see it my way

 

Well, not 100% in control.  I doubt anyone is.  But 100% free . . . certainly.

The greater fool is one who argues with one.

I've fallen victim often enough so I'm guilty as charged. 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, not 100% in control.  I doubt anyone is.  But 100% free . . . certainly.

The greater fool is one who argues with one.

I've fallen victim often enough so I'm guilty as charged. 

LOL

I agree with you 99%.

However, if arguing implies testing your ideas, even with some occasional disappointment, i would argue that not arguing at all is worse.

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I can believe that, 2 polarities ( creation, destruction) and a point of equilibrium (preservation). ????

Okay.  Now that you've used the terms in an example I can understand the concept.  They're not terms I would use if I had to explain the process of swapping beliefs.  When replacing a false idea, thought to be true, with another idea that is true, yet doubted to be true, there's a lot of back and forth . . . or push and pull . . . where you accept the new idea but then fall back on the old one.  However many times one goes round and round before a new idea becomes the predominating one varies depending on a number of factors.  I think the ideas which are the most emotionally charged are the most difficult to displace.

Then again there's no guarantor of the permanence of any newly accepted idea.  One can always go back to the original idea.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

LOL

I agree with you 99%.

However, if arguing implies testing your ideas, even with some occasional disappointment, i would argue that not arguing at all is worse.

That's very true.  That only goes to show that there isn't anything that's a waste of time.  It's all good.

[mauGR1]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Okay.  Now that you've used the terms in an example I can understand the concept.  They're not terms I would use if I had to explain the process of swapping beliefs.  When replacing a false idea, thought to be true, with another idea that is true, yet doubted to be true, there's a lot of back and forth . . . or push and pull . . . where you accept the new idea but then fall back on the old one.  However many times one goes round and round before a new idea becomes the predominating one varies depending on a number of factors.  I think the ideas which are the most emotionally charged are the most difficult to displace.

Then again there's no guarantor of the permanence of any newly accepted idea.  One can always go back to the original idea.

At the risk of being pedantic, i have to say again, those 3 forces , can be called with different names and are present in everything, including, i dare to say, the thoughts themselves; preservation for example, can be called also love, attraction, magnetism, force of gravity, sympathy, compassion, persistence, endurance etc.

If you observe an atom, a big one, like the solar system, you'll notice those 3 main forces at work in various ways.

As above, as below. 

 

[Tippaporn]

For my next hat trick I'd like to dispel the notion that the die hard science folks here hold, and claim over and over ad nauseam, that science is capable of proving everything and anything using the scientific method, and thus is the only discipline capable of determining the truth of all things?

 

For this exercise we'll make the assumption that the theory that one creates his or her own reality using thoughts is true.  In order for science to prove this then it would need to know what someone's true thoughts are in order to match the thought to the reality created.  Since thoughts are private no one can know what another's thoughts are.  And how can one produce evidence of a particular thought since it's not physical?

 

Any science die hard here (I think VincentRJ was the last but I haven't seen him of late) who would be willing to take that one on?

Could science even prove that the reverse, which is the only other option, is true . . . that we don't create our reality via thoughts, or otherwise?  Or would they object using the argument that it's not their obligation to prove a negative?

 

How often have I tried to convince them that the scientific method has it's limitations due to the fact that not everything is something physical that one can probe, categorise,  and measure?

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

For my next hat trick I'd like to dispel the notion that the die hard science folks here hold, and claim over and over ad nauseam, that science is capable of proving everything and anything using the scientific method, and thus is the only discipline capable of determining the truth of all things?

 

For this exercise we'll make the assumption that the theory that one creates his or her own reality using thoughts is true.  In order for science to prove this then it would need to know what someone's true thoughts are in order to match the thought to the reality created.  Since thoughts are private no one can know what another's thoughts are.  And how can one produce evidence of a particular thought since it's not physical?

 

Any science die hard here (I think VincentRJ was the last but I haven't seen him of late) who would be willing to take that one on?

Could science even prove that the reverse, which is the only other option, is true . . . that we don't create our reality via thoughts, or otherwise?  Or would they object using the argument that it's not their obligation to prove a negative?

 

How often have I tried to convince them that the scientific method has it's limitations due to the fact that not everything is something physical that one can probe, categorise,  and measure?

Anyone else experience this thread crash when using notification link?

 

Science can be good to back up your belief, or make you change your mind, as well try to keep most people on a sensible track in life with goals that contributes to the society we or most benefits from. 
 

If everyone was going to be freethinkers, what would be the end result? A more united world, or more chaos? 

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

At the risk of being pedantic, i have to say again, those 3 forces , can be called with different names and are present in everything, including, i dare to say, the thoughts themselves; preservation for example, can be called also love, attraction, magnetism, force of gravity, sympathy, compassion, persistence, endurance etc.

If you observe an atom, a big one, like the solar system, you'll notice those 3 main forces at work in various ways.

As above, as below.

Jane Roberts, the author of the Seth material, was raised Catholic.  There were some who wanted her to comment on the similarities or differences of the Seth material and Christian theology.  She had no interest to do so.  I share her sentiment.  I have no interest in making comparisons between the Seth material and the concepts taught by other religions.  I see no point in it.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If everyone was going to be freethinkers, what would be the end result? A more united world, or more chaos? 

I've asked myself the same question, perhaps more free thinkers the better. 

But of course i cannot prove it.

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

have no interest in making comparisons between the Seth material and the concepts taught by other religions.  I see no point in it.

Well, it's the opposite for me, I've been cross- checking different beliefs and religions and philosophies since my teens. 

Although coming in recent years to the decision of choosing a school of thought, I'm still comparing, and it's  a joy when I find that, essentially, the same wisdom can be explained in so many different ways, but it's still the same wisdom.

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, it's the opposite for me, I've been cross- checking different beliefs and religions and philosophies since my teens. 

Although coming in recent years to the decision of choosing a school of thought, I'm still comparing, and it's  a joy when I find that, essentially, the same wisdom can be explained in so many different ways, but it's still the same wisdom.

After all, there is to many similarities between even the most conflicting religions that it can be a coincidence or random thinking around the world without same origin beginning of how humans create their beliefs. Be it a universal consensus or more physical connection between the early big thinkers. I believe the last, but I also know humans have an tendency to end up thinking very much the same things and make same conclusions even there is no consensus binding us together. 
 

If there was a universal consensus, why do we not have better understanding of each other?

[mauGR1]

19 minutes ago, Hummin said:

After all, there is to many similarities between even the most conflicting religions that it can be a coincidence or random thinking around the world without same origin beginning of how humans create their beliefs.

While i believe coincidences have the right to exist, i think in this case, similarities and differences among beliefs are not coincidental. 

Actually, i tend not to believe in coincidences at all, but i want to give a little credit to S.Freud. " Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" ????

 

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Anyone else experience this thread crash when using notification link?

 

Science can be good to back up your belief, or make you change your mind, as well try to keep most people on a sensible track in life with goals that contributes to the society we or most benefits from. 
 

If everyone was going to be freethinkers, what would be the end result? A more united world, or more chaos? 

Seth has discussed science quite a bit.  He advocates for a loving science.  I'm all in favour of that.  As it stands now, however, science is not a loving one in many respects.  I'll have to dig up one of my more recent posts.

  

On 8/24/2022 at 7:31 PM, Tippaporn said:

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.

Science is valueless.  In other words science has zero moral principles guiding it.  It leaves philosophical questions to the philosophers.  I can certainly understand why since science would have an impossible time trying to prove any wisdom as being true or false.  At least physicians have the Hippocratic Oath.  Well, until Covid came along.

So please try and answer what the effects are of science's views, which are taught the world over, which I listed in my quote above?  Those views don't produce chaos?  Seriously, I will be waiting for an in depth answer.

Perhaps the vilest perspective that science holds is that life has no value.  "WHAT?!?!?!" you might protest in a screeching tone.  "That's not true!!!  It's the opposite!!!"

 

 

They had to cut the beagles' vocal chords so they didn't have to listen to their cries of pain.

 

You cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it.  The cruelty done to animals in the name of science is beyond words.  "But it's to save human life!!"  So the argument would be that to defile other life is okay as long as it's for the benefit of humans?  A pathetic argument indeed.  Is there no other way?  Yes, there is.

 

Freethinkers?  You make that sound as though freethinkers are a dangerous pox unto humanity.  How about getting the ideas of reality right?  You think that might be a solution?

The science types are extremely sensitive to being called out on their long list of unworthy and despicable contributions to society and the world.  From the creation of weapons of mass destruction, to pesticides, to GMO's, to the creation of chemicals such as Agent Orange and all the way to Covid.  How many have died in the name of science?  Or would you rather talk about the uniting effects of Covid?  The united protests across the world to put an end to the unscientific Covid restrictions put into place in most every western country?  No chaos created there, that's for sure.

Science isn't universally bad, as I've stated over and over again.  I'm not anti science.  I appreciate science's loving accomplishments.  Are you asking that I ignore their darker side and consider only their geniune triumphs?

You picked the wrong poster, Hummin, to try to sell the pathetic idea that only science can unite the world and prevent the chaos that would arise from a bunch of radical freethinkers.  I, least of all, have a need for science to "back up my ideas," hint: validate.

Change my mind?  About all I've learned in my long life?  What do you expect?  An, "Aw, gee, I was wrong about everything my entire life.  Thank god (with a small "g") for the God of Science to save me from my backward and wrong-headed thinking."  And for what?  Science hasn't a clue as to what makes this world go round.  If you've read my most recent posts, and I don't know that you have, then you just don't get it.  Here we go again with the doll with the pull ring coming out of it's back.

To be frank, Hummin, that was one of the most audacious posts I've read on this thread.  Talk about consummate hubris.

[DrPhibes]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I can believe that, 2 polarities ( creation, destruction) and a point of equilibrium (preservation). ????

But true equilibrium does not exist, even at the quantum level.  There is always a pendulum like oscillation about a phantom middle that we average as an equilibrium amount.  It is the actual width of the variation from that phantom middle that affects us.  Good times are when we swing through that phantom middle and call that stability.

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, DrPhibes said:

But true equilibrium does not exist, even at the quantum level.  There is always a pendulum like oscillation about a phantom middle that we average as an equilibrium amount.  It is the actual width of the variation from that phantom middle that affects us.  Good times are when we swing through that phantom middle and call that stability.

Appreciate your hair splitting, i agree with you,  nothing is completely motionless, not even a block of marble.

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it.  The cruelty done to animals in the name of science is beyond words.  "But it's to save human life!!"  So the argument would be that to defile other life is okay as long as it's for the benefit of humans?  A pathetic argument indeed.  Is there no other way?  Yes, there is.

 

The science types are extremely sensitive to being called out on their long list of unworthy and despicable contributions... 

Good post, i especially want to highlight this concept :

" you cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it".

It seems obvious to me, but apparently I'm a minority. 

Hopefully in the not too distant future this concept will become universally accepted.

... perhaps in a couple of centuries though. 

[AsianAtHeart]

EXISTENCE OF GOD

 

Regarding the existence of God, no amount of facts, truth, or information will suffice to convince anyone, especially against his will.  But this does not mean it is impossible to help someone learn about God.  The ultimate truth about God is His love, and it is only the genuine article--pure, unselfish love--that has any real power to persuade.

 

VALIDITY OF SCIENCE

 

The term "science," as so often bandied about, is disingenuously applied to the concept of "fact," largely because "science" is a cover-term for the combined knowledge and contributions of many individual human beings, each of whom has his or her own opinions, biases, and subjectivity to add to the mix.  Like the sea, in whose waters are dissolved minerals of countless types, "science" is often a mixture of multiple persuasions, with nearly as many hypotheses, theories, and conclusions as there are scientists to propose them.  When there is a seeming "consensus" among scientists, it masks a considerable undertow of peer pressure which forbids the expressions of opposing views, at great personal cost to the one bold enough to defy the status quo.  I know, personally, multiple individuals who have lost their jobs for expressing their own views which were at odds with the "party line."  In essence, science is a religion of its own kind.

 

The biggest problem with modern "science" is that it really isn't.  The purported results of the majority of peer-reviewed, published studies are non-reproducible.  The authors have, for various reasons, reached untenable conclusions, yet their math and statistical analyses make them appear valid.  An excellent treatise on the problem, by William A. Wilson (May 2016), is to be found here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

 

 

QUOTABLE QUOTE

 

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

-- Winston Churchill

 

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

When there is a seeming "consensus" among scientists, it masks a considerable undertow of peer pressure which forbids the expressions of opposing views, at great personal cost to the one bold enough to defy the status quo.  I know, personally, multiple individuals who have lost their jobs for expressing their own views which were at odds with the "party line."  In essence, science is a religion of its own kind.

 

I've been vilified for nearly 3 years for expressing the same view. 

Thanks God, reading your post, and various posts from @Tippaporn I'm somehow regaining faith in humanity. 

[Hummin]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Seth has discussed science quite a bit.  He advocates for a loving science.  I'm all in favour of that.  As it stands now, however, science is not a loving one in many respects.  I'll have to dig up one of my more recent posts.

  

Science is valueless.  In other words science has zero moral principles guiding it.  It leaves philosophical questions to the philosophers.  I can certainly understand why since science would have an impossible time trying to prove any wisdom as being true or false.  At least physicians have the Hippocratic Oath.  Well, until Covid came along.

So please try and answer what the effects are of science's views, which are taught the world over, which I listed in my quote above?  Those views don't produce chaos?  Seriously, I will be waiting for an in depth answer.

Perhaps the vilest perspective that science holds is that life has no value.  "WHAT?!?!?!" you might protest in a screeching tone.  "That's not true!!!  It's the opposite!!!"

 

 

They had to cut the beagles' vocal chords so they didn't have to listen to their cries of pain.

 

You cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it.  The cruelty done to animals in the name of science is beyond words.  "But it's to save human life!!"  So the argument would be that to defile other life is okay as long as it's for the benefit of humans?  A pathetic argument indeed.  Is there no other way?  Yes, there is.

 

Freethinkers?  You make that sound as though freethinkers are a dangerous pox unto humanity.  How about getting the ideas of reality right?  You think that might be a solution?

The science types are extremely sensitive to being called out on their long list of unworthy and despicable contributions to society and the world.  From the creation of weapons of mass destruction, to pesticides, to GMO's, to the creation of chemicals such as Agent Orange and all the way to Covid.  How many have died in the name of science?  Or would you rather talk about the uniting effects of Covid?  The united protests across the world to put an end to the unscientific Covid restrictions put into place in most every western country?  No chaos created there, that's for sure.

Science isn't universally bad, as I've stated over and over again.  I'm not anti science.  I appreciate science's loving accomplishments.  Are you asking that I ignore their darker side and consider only their geniune triumphs?

You picked the wrong poster, Hummin, to try to sell the pathetic idea that only science can unite the world and prevent the chaos that would arise from a bunch of radical freethinkers.  I, least of all, have a need for science to "back up my ideas," hint: validate.

Change my mind?  About all I've learned in my long life?  What do you expect?  An, "Aw, gee, I was wrong about everything my entire life.  Thank god (with a small "g") for the God of Science to save me from my backward and wrong-headed thinking."  And for what?  Science hasn't a clue as to what makes this world go round.  If you've read my most recent posts, and I don't know that you have, then you just don't get it.  Here we go again with the doll with the pull ring coming out of it's back.

To be frank, Hummin, that was one of the most audacious posts I've read on this thread.  Talk about consummate hubris.

You have good science, and you have biased science which search to serve a purpose, as much as religion does in politics and also for peoples personal lives. 
 

So I like to cherry picking. 
 

I do not accept more biological sexes than two, and Im ok if some tells me they are not what they where borned, but still as long you have reproductive organs as one sex, thats what you are from nature. 
 

I science says the earth is round, and I think that is right, than the earth is round. If the science says we orbit the sun, I also believe that, but that because I have faith in that science and the proof they have given me. Sometimes we just have to make certain decissions in life that also benefits us and the society. 

[Hummin]

 

 

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

The biggest problem with modern "science" is that it really isn't.  The purported results of the majority of peer-reviewed, published studies are non-reproducible.  The authors have, for various reasons, reached untenable conclusions, yet their math and statistical analyses make them appear valid.  An excellent treatise on the problem, by William A. Wilson (May 2016), is to be found here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

Thanks for the link to the article by William A. Wilson. That's an interesting read. He highlights some very significant issues and problems within the various organizations of scientific inquiry. However, it would be a mistake to smear and cast doubt on the true and ideal 'methodology' of science just because of certain human failings which don't measure up to those ideal standards of the Methodology of Science.

 

To quote from the article:  "The best scientists know that they must practice a sort of mortification of the ego and cultivate a dispassion that allows them to report their findings, even when those findings might mean the dashing of hopes, the drying up of financial resources, and the loss of professional prestige." 

 

People, including scientists, have careers, families to support, mortgages to pay off, and most people have a lust for some degree of power and fame to satisfy their ego and vanity. This is the problem. Attacking 'science' is not addressing the problem.

 

Whilst it might be shocking to read in the article that as many as 65% of published studies in Psychology showed positive results which could not later be replicated, it was the application of the 'methodology of science' which revealed that those 65% of published studies were at least questionable, if not false.

 

Also, research in the 'soft sciences', such as psychology, sociology, medical research, and 'climate change', is very challenging, and sometimes impossible to verify because of the numerous interacting forces which cannot always be identified and controlled during experimentation. Ideally, this lack of certainty should always be revealed, and it often is in the scientific papers, but revealing such uncertainty to the public can sometimes have undesirable effects, such as reducing the 'placebo' effect which is important during medical treatment. 

 

The 'cult' of science is another important issue, that should not be confused with 'true' science. To quote from the article:

 

"The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. 
The greatest friends of the Cult of Science are the worst enemies of science’s actual practice."

 

In my opinion, the 'Climate Change' issue is an excellent example of this 'cult', where a 97% consensus is concocted, for political purposes, and a simple solution offered to make the climate benign and reduce the occurrence of extreme weather events.

 

Stop burning fossil fuels and reduce our CO2 emissions. What could be simpler? ????

 

In summary, the discovery and development of the 'Methodology of Science' has been the greatest boon to humanity since the beginning of civilization. Whilst there are many places in the world where people are suffering from disasters, conflicts, famines, diseases, extreme poverty, and so on, these problems are mainly due to the lack of the application of science, as well as the corruption and incompetence of those in power.

 

Those who are in denial about the over-all benefits of science like to give examples of the devastation cause by modern wars using sophisticated weapons based upon scientific discoveries, such as the atomic bombs that ended the war in Japan in September 1945. However, wars have always occurred throughout human history, and in terms of the percentages of the world population that have been killed during such wars, the percentages were much greater in the past.

 

For example, it is estimated that the Mongol conquests in the 13th century resulted in the deaths of about 11% of the world population, and as high as 60 million people in Eurasia.
The Hundred Years' Wars between England and France resulted in the killing of half the population of France and also resulted in a pandemic which killed up to an estimated 200 million.

 

WWI by comparison, when the world population was much higher, has an estimated 20 million deaths of soldiers and civilians, followed by another 50 million deaths caused by the 'Spanish Flu' which began and was spreading during the war.

 

Thanks to science, the current number of Covid-19 deaths, world-wide, is only 6,487,445.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

 

I hope I have demolished this silly idea that Science is not the greatest boon to humanity. ????

[AsianAtHeart]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I hope I have demolished this silly idea that Science is not the greatest boon to humanity. ????

Can you tell me why "science" has not removed the fabricated and debunked notions of the peppered moth and Haeckel's embryos ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") from biology textbooks?  It would be one thing if they admitted to the actual missteps of history--but they still use these as examples of the supposed genetic process because they seem like such great supports to their pet theory of origins (naturalistic evolution--usually all the way down from abiogenesis).  The peppered moth theory is still taught as fact, despite the fact it was debunked decades ago, and known to have been a fabrication (peppered moths land, not on the tree trunks, where they were glued for the photos, but up in the foliage).  The nonsense about the tree trunks turning colors due to factory pollution having an effect on the darker versus lighter moths was a clever fraud perpetrated on the whole world.

 

It wasn't the first, and won't be the last.  Remember "Nebraska Man"?  That was an even more egregious case (and at least that one is now absent from the supposed history of Homo sapiens).

 

No, "science" is not the answer to all of life's problems.  Not at all.  Perhaps "true science" is, but true science is unknown to most of today's scientists.  The truest and highest science that exists in this world is the science of salvation, and, whereas this is the only science that can lead to eternal life, most accept an inferior science in the pursuit of riches, fame, or temporal comfort--all of which are ephemeral.

 

I do appreciate that you took time to read the article.  I enjoyed it, too.  It is definitely a good read, as you have said, and it would be worth reading for most anyone interested in some of the issues that "science" is facing today.

 

The article only scratches the surface of those problems.  One of the elephants in the room is the manner of publication: companies will indeed outsource their research projects to third parties as they should, to have them study the company's products, but when the independent report comes back negative, they simply file it away without ever publishing it.  There is nothing particularly "unscientific" about not revealing everything, one might think, and yet, if nine of ten reports comes back negative, the only report published will be the one that returned positive--a rather unbalanced "science," as most might understand.  And this is commonplace, especially among the drug companies. 

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, Hummin said:

 

It always amazes me that people find someone who accomplishes a great deal in a given field and all of a sudden everyone hangs on his every belief about the rest of life's issues, of which he may be wholly inadequate to provide any worthwhile opinion.  Asking Elon about the 'meaning of life'?  What a joke.  You may as well ask your next door neighbor and would probably get a better reply.  Elon's answer is a bunch of generalised woo.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It always amazes me that people find someone who accomplishes a great deal in a given field and all of a sudden everyone hangs on his every belief about the rest of life's issues, of which he may be wholly inadequate to provide any worthwhile opinion.  Asking Elon about the 'meaning of life'?  What a joke.  You may as well ask your next door neighbor and would probably get a better reply.  Elon's answer is a bunch of generalised woo.

I had a look at the video,thanks God it was short.

He has money and he's famous, so he must be right.

...people are showing who they really love and adore.

.. ???? 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

would be a mistake to smear and cast doubt on the true and ideal 'methodology' of science just because of certain human failings which don't measure...

Nice sugar coating, what you call " certain human failings" appear to be the norm if one uses a little critical thinking. 

 

"Science " indeed benefits the people who own it, but I'm not really sure about the remaining 99% of the world population. 

We already agreed long ago that science, intended as the relentless search for knowledge is a good thing,  but unfortunately knowledge can be used against the man and the environment. 

There's a classic historical example about the "discovery" of gunpowder. 

The Chinese were using gunpowder for fireworks for donkey years, then the white people came, got it, and after few weeks, guns and cannons were ready and available.

I don't even want to start at how the media can influence the perception of reality... the science of communication ????

 

[Hummin]

53 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It always amazes me that people find someone who accomplishes a great deal in a given field and all of a sudden everyone hangs on his every belief about the rest of life's issues, of which he may be wholly inadequate to provide any worthwhile opinion.  Asking Elon about the 'meaning of life'?  What a joke.  You may as well ask your next door neighbor and would probably get a better reply.  Elon's answer is a bunch of generalised woo.

At least he is earnest, and to be true, he is more than one field guy! You have to give him that! 
 

To many ramble around stating beliefs as facts, and believe in it, and when finding someone who have as wild  beliefs as themselves, petting their back and backing each other up ????

 

Simple careful approach is always the best until you know for sure. 

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, Hummin said:

You have good science, and you have biased science which search to serve a purpose, as much as religion does in politics and also for peoples personal lives. 
 

So I like to cherry picking. 
 

I do not accept more biological sexes than two, and Im ok if some tells me they are not what they where borned, but still as long you have reproductive organs as one sex, thats what you are from nature. 
 

I science says the earth is round, and I think that is right, than the earth is round. If the science says we orbit the sun, I also believe that, but that because I have faith in that science and the proof they have given me. Sometimes we just have to make certain decissions in life that also benefits us and the society. 

Yes, you are certainly correct in that you like to cherry pick.  The tough questions, the questions that require hard thinking, those are not the ones you pick.  You're like a politician who has a media interview and all they ask are softball questions.  Once during o crisis, which one I can't remember, Biden was eating an ice cream cone in front of an ice cream shop whilst surrounded by reporters.  "President Biden, what ice cream flavour do you like?"

Here's the post again.

  

On 8/24/2022 at 7:31 PM, Tippaporn said:

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.

Now I've been explaining what ideas are and pointing out that they produce the world we live in.  Like children's building blocks people pick and choose amongst all the ideas available, all of the possible ideas which exist, and create not only your personal experience but along with the interactions of other entities just like yourself so together mass reality is created.  From your individual choices you create your life, your particular experience to every last detail.  Your life, and everyone else's, is a reflection of the ideas one chooses to accept as being 'true.'

Ideas...
...are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality.
Idea constructions...
...are transformations of ideas into physical reality.

Action...
...is idea in motion.

 

Just to clarify, every action you take is based on an idea that is in your head on which you choose to act upon.  No exceptions.  No one acts randomly.

In my post above I'm pointing out that for all of it's faults, and there are many, at least religion provides the individual with the ideas of self worth and purpose.  Those accepted ideas are then acted on in one way or another depending on the individual's unique propensities.   Those ideas generally provide beneficial results for the individual and for the rest of the world.

 

Now here's an incomplete list of the building blocks, ideas, of science which are also used to create a different kind, or a different version of the world.

There is no purpose in life other than the reproduction of the species.

There is no control in one's life.

Their is no value in life.

The survival of the fittest determines who lives and who dies.

Emotions are only due to the chemical interactions in one's brain.
Biology does not determine sex.

Personal choice is an illusion.

If you were to design a functional, operational world are these the ideas you would choose to build that reality?  And yet these ideas are being used.  If the physical world is a reflection of the ideas we hold then these ideas can only produce one result.  They cannot produce anything different.  That is an impossibility.

Now take a look at the world around you and identify areas in which these ideas play out, e.g. manifest.  Do you like the results?  If you don't thenyou best get to work and examine the ideas you personally subscribe to as 'true' and do some hard questioning as to whether or not they are beliefs about reality or beliefs taken as conditions of reality.  Big difference.

"Sometimes we just have to make certain decissions in life that also benefits us and the society."

I'll repeat, you cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it.  Sacrificing the life of other living creatures to sustain your own is a horrible idea.  It plays out in many, many more ways than you are probably aware of, with equally horrid outcomes.  There are other ways but unfortunately science rejects those approaches.

 

Now be brave enough to address the tough questions.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

At least he is earnest, and to be true, he is more than one field guy! You have to give him that! 
 

To many ramble around stating beliefs as facts, and believe in it, and when finding someone who have as wild  beliefs as themselves, petting their back and backing each other up ????

 

Simple careful approach is always the best until you know for sure. 

"Simple careful approach is always the best until you know for sure."

That's been my approach my entire life.  But you see, I'm just an unknown, insignificant peon incapable of coming to correct conclusions on my own.  That is what you believe, correct?  It's a pathetic and completely untrue belief in my opinion.  But I'm just some guy rambling around stating silly, outlandish beliefs which I foolishly believe in.  I'm stupid, right?

[mauGR1]

22 minutes ago, Hummin said:

and when finding someone who have as wild  beliefs as themselves, petting their back and backing each other up ????

Hey, i always back you up when you post something which makes sense.

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen very often, but it's not my fault. 

Yet, if you eagerly look for the truth, inside and outside, and in the middle, I'm confident that you will find something. Soon or later.