|
| Thread: The Spirituality Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
coldmystery
Tavern Dweller
|
posted September 03, 2005 11:59 PM |
|
|
Spiritual?
I think spirituality is over rated and should take a back seet to things a little more grounded in plain every day reality. Like..... just being a really good person. I mean being cool and nice isn't a pre-requisit for any spirituality or religion. I think once you got the being cool thing down then focus on other stuff. But that's easy for me to say, I am both the coolest human being alive and a god of all gods. SO NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!!
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 04:03 AM |
|
|
being nice and living a full life is indeed very important. Being cool, however, is not.
That being said, it comes to a point in your life where you perceive more than what is really there. You start questioning, you start wondering. Then again, you may not, and that's ok too.
But for people like me who have always seen reality in a different light, or that they find out that what they see is not what everyone sees, you really start wondering and you seek answers.
So, that's why it was so important for me.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 07:51 AM |
|
|
I am only about half-way through page two so far but felt compelled to reply to this:
Quote:
Never said I was looking for a Pink Unicorn, invisble or
not. That is your sceptics mind talking. My only stated
goal is that the mind should become quiet, and one can
then act from awareness, not from habit pattern. Trust
me, its goal not easily attained and I dont say I'm all
the way there. To get there, I use meditation as a technique of discipline.
Well, I am a card carrying 'skeptic' myself. I am one of those guys who seeks to spoil everyone's fun by revealing how psychics perform their con-artistry and exposing the logical flaws in spiritualist/supernaturalist arguments.
We skeptics are not so because we are mean-spirited or (the ever popular) "closed minded" or arrogant. Skepticism is all about open-mindedness. It demands that one be open minded enough to accept unpleasant or undesireable truths.
I am seeing a lot of this appeal to ignorance fallacy in this thread. A sort of spiritualist "God of the gaps" argument that says that, since there is stuff science has not revealed yet, something extraordinary and supernatural must exist(or is somehow likely).
What's even worse here is that some of you are going beyond the simple argument from ignorance and coupling this fallacy with bald assertions(unqualified beliefs stated as if they were established facts).
A little fact about science that most are keenly unaware of: The ONLY thing that CANNOT be measured or revealed by scientific methodology are IMAGINARY THINGS! Period. If something, say the "soul" exists then it can be measured/observed/studied. If a thing cannot be so quantified/substantiated then it cannot be said to exist.
People often take it for granted that there are "things beyond the material realm of science". To those people, I ask what the qualitative difference between these 'spiritual things'(for lack of a better term) and an invisible pink unicorn is? What makes the "soul" more real than, say a fairy or a dragon? There are many even today who believe in fairies and dragons(adults even!) and have argued with the likes of me until they were blue in the face but they have this in common with spiritualists and paranormalists of all stripes: they cannot offer the tiniest bit of evidence to warrant the inference of their existential claims.
Paul Bunyan, Bigfoot, dragons, Santa Claus, the soul, God(s), ghosts, smurfs and werewolves all ahve one single thing in common...they all share a complete LACK of any sort of rational justification.
Continued below(where I will probably delve into pattern recognition behavior as it is extremely important in undertstanding how humans "find" evidence of their beliefs, even when no such evidence exists).
Quote:
Scientific fact changes, from flat world to round as new
info comes in.
Exactly, but I think you are looking at this the wrong way. You see science's self-correcting nature as an indication of inconsistency or proneness to error while in actuality, science is just plain honest inquiry(when done right). IT was not scientists who claimed the earth was flat BTW. At least not in the sense of practicing the liberal scientific method as we understand it. Ancient Greeks like Erastothenes had deduced the shape and circumfrence of the earth over 2,000 years ago. It was religionists and spiritualists who kept this knowledge from being widespread for another 1600+ years!
Quote:
Those who suspect a divine intelligence
perhaps do so from observing an intricate pattern in
creation.
And this is as good a point as any to delve in to pattern recognition. Humans are pattern seeking animals. Our brains are wired to find the patterns we seek to confirm that which comforts us. We are incredibly adept at this. So much so that even IF there is no such thing as a soul or anything remotely "spiritual", you would still find all the evidence you currently think you have to convince yourself that these things exist.
Discovery Channel(which is not my favorite television to say the least  ) ran a program once about UFOlogy/Roswell adn such and during the taping of the show, they ran a little experiement with a group of randomly selected people. The DC folks posed as some focus group for some company or other and hired the subjects to participate in a nature hike through the New Mexico dessert with a guide(who was a plant of theirs).
The test subjects, unaware of the true nature of the experiement they were part of, were to accompany this guide wearing helmets with cameras affixed to them and learn about the flora and fauna of the region and report back on the quality of the tour.
But at some point the Discovery people set up a bizarre scene with caution tape, scattered debris and military looking personel. When the group came upon the scene, the camoflauged men pointed at them and commanded that they leave the "restricted area". While they were hurrying off, the guide informed the rest of the group that these soldiers had detained him and searched his van just days before when he stumbled into the wrong area.
When the unwitting test subjects got back to the faux focus group they were individually asked a series of mundane questions about how the guide did, what they learned etc.
Then they were asked if anything "unusual" happened.
Immediately upon being asked this, each member of the group launched into fantasticly detailed accounts of scores of armed soldiers pointing guns at them and shouting dire threats and warnings while guarding the strange scattered debris.
Their helmet cameras told a completely different story. There were no guns pointed at anyone and there were only two or three of the men in camoflauge and the "strange debris" was just a bunch of junk that could have been anything from car parts to whatever.
One woman became so convinced of the story that occured in her mind that she alleged the infromation recorded via her helmet camera had been tampered with or replaced by someone. In other words, the myth that existed in her mind was far more "real" than the truth.
Similarly, there have been countless "witnesses" to the JFK assassination, alleging to have seen all manner of strange and unexplained things but were no where NEAR the state of Texas in the 1960s adn some of them were not even BORN when JFK was killed!
Humans rely on memory more than anything else when determining what they believe about reality and that is a HUGE mistake. Memory is the most unreliable thing we rely on! We do not "store" memories the way people imagine(like BMP files on a hard drive). We CREATE them on the fly to suit our needs!. Memory information is kept more like a small text notation and from this bare information, we use our imaginations to reconstruct events.
Quote:
All those scientific laws came from somewhere,
chaos is a more likely outcome from a randomn creation.
God does not play dice with the universe after all.
First of all, you are begging the question. Why do you think that physical laws must "come from somehwere"? Laws of physics are not like the laws of society. There is no "omnipotent legislator" crafting gravity and such.
I have no idea what you mean by "chaos is a more likely outcome of random creation." so I will leave that alone for now.
The "God does not play dice..." quote has been taken out of context and misrepresented more often than perhaps any quote of Einstein's. Einstein was an atheist and he was perhaps even more unforgiving than ME when it came to spitirual/supernatural beliefs(he basically thought all spiritualist mysticism weas foolish "egotism").
The "God does not play dice..." quote was offered to Neils Bohr in response to the ideas of qunatum mechanics. Eisntein wass a determinist and rejected QM initially. He thought the universe was too orderly to allow for the chaos of quantum theory. He made this point to Bohr by saying "God does not play dice with the universe."(using "God" metaphorically as per his pantheist way). Bohr then replied "Quit telling God what to do!"
But when Albert became aware of his error, he offered: "It seems God DOES play dice with the universe!", incontrast to his earlier position.
Quote:
It is not true that science and spiritual thinking
needs to be at odds with eachother.
Not at odds necessarily, but entirely SEPERATE yes. Science is not in the business of studying that which cannot be studied or quantifying that which cannot be measaured. The only reason our universe adn reality are at all knowable is because of the limitations upon it. If anything were truly possible(as many are wont to contend), then we could not ever know whether we were feeding our children or slaying them or whether we were walking or swimming through lime jello.
We could not know ANYTHING in such a universe as the "anything is possible" model.
But thus far reality seems to hold to predictable cause and effect patterns and there does not seem to be any room for the supernatural, nor any need for that hypothesis.
Quote:
That is a hold
over from the days when the RC church excommnuicated
people for opposing views. Creationism and evolution
actually fit together better than most people think, if
they could step out side the concepts their minds hold.
Not true. "Creationism"(with the capital 'C') is a purely religious idea that seeks to masquerade as science and eventually drive science out. You would be right to say that it is possible to aknowledge the fact of evolution and still believe that God set it all in motion but that is not "Creationism" per se and the ideas about what some supernatural god may have done beyond our scrutiny can never be taken into account scientifically. That sort of belief is a faith-conviction and must remain so.
Quote:
All this came from somewhere (creation), and nobody is sure where.
Appeal to ignorance. It does not follow that because you or I do not know exactly how the universe evolved naturally, at every step, then it must have come about supernaturally. There are a million and one possibilities for the orgin of the universe(including infinite regress of causes which would mean that no definite orgin occured).
Quote:
You can think science is the be all and end all of progressive thought, but it too becomes the RC Church of the present as it holds to what it thinks to be true, not allowing greater possibilities.
This is a strawman argument. The strawman fallacy occurs when one characterises the opposition in such a way that is false and most often ridiculous to make attacking their position easier.
Science has nothing to do with "progressive thought". It is simply our best(only?) means of critically examining reality. If it is revealed that the "spiritual" exists and science is ill-equipped to deal with such, then at that time, you can blast away at how deficient science is. But until then, we have no more reason to think that souls and the like exist than we do that Santa Claus exists(I am not trying to insult here. I mean that literally! There is no more evidence suggesting these spiritual things than there is suggesting Santa).
Science is not some religious worldview. HTere are no morals or political doctrines that science itself encourages. No heirarchy of priests or rituals.
Science is like baseball. Imagine you are on a baseball field with 17 other players, all dressed in baseball uniforms. There are people swinging bats and throwing hardballs and people running around bases. Everybody reacts concurrently to these things. A wild pitch causes a batter to duck at the same time as the catcher reaches out to snag the errant throw.
Then all of a sudden the second baseman walks over to you and says "Are you going to score a touchdown?".
Confused, you remind him that this is a baseball game adn there are no football players on the field, nor any "end zones" nor any footballs to throw.
"Oh sure there are!" says the second baseman."You just cannot see them because you are stuck in that pradigm of thinking that baseball is the be all and end all of sports!"
"You can score touchdowns in this game but those umpires won't aknowledge when you do because they are stuck in that same 'baseballists' mindset!"
"Well..." you ask. "Where are the footballs adn quarterbacks and pads and such? WHere are the end zones and how do we score touchdowns in this game?!"
"I can't explain it to you in a way that your baseballist mindset would comprehend. You just have to quiet your mind and let your footballist awareness take over...then you will see."
Now to make the analogy completely valid, imagine that baseball field is the entire planet and cannot be walked out of. We have powerful technological exploratory equipment that allows us to see a great deal outside the stadium but we still do not see any "football stuff".
Science is like baseball in that it rules out "touchdowns"(supernatural stuff). Supernatural elements are for metaphysicists and philosophers and daydreamers but not scientists.
Quote:
As far as your perceptions being objective, I think if
you could remove Karl Marx from your brain, maybe you
would see more clearly 
I won't even ask about Karl Marx but perceptions are largely objective in what we can concurrently observe. In other words, you may "percieve"(in a sense) a dragonh swooping down at you but when no one else around you starts ducking adn running for cover, you can rest assured that you are delusional.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 07:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My dear Svarog, I don't answer you on purpose. Its mostly
because you don't care for answers, you just want to argue
your vision of scientific rationalism. Its a kind of mental
masturbation without resolution. Every time someone starts
a thread with a "spiritual" tinge, you jump in ready to
tear it apart, with out really adding anything constructive. If you have no respect for the subject, then stay away .
I will try, however, to let you know that some physicists
are turning to a rather mystical outlook. Here is one:
[url]http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/qmeta.html[/url]
I could provide more links, but I'll let you research the
subject on your own. The point being, in this article,
is that whether or not there is a proof for spirit, his
mind is open to looking and exploring the subject.
Edit: another link
[url]http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Fritjof-Capra.htm[/url]
The first link you gave I did not bother to visit. Why? Because I have it BOOKMARKED! Victor Stenger is one of the foremost debunkers of the "spiritual" and mystical alive. Did YOU bother to read anything he wrote?!? Victor Stenger is a skeptic and echoes much of what Svarog has been arguing here. I am not sure how you managed to try and usurp Stenger as a fellow "mystic".
And for the most part, ALL skeptical minds are open to the subject. We simply draw the line at being so open that our brains fall out! If I pluck a feather from a creature, feel it's beak and allow it to grasp my finger with it's talons, at that point I am no oonger "open" to the possibility of the creature being a hippopotamus or a sasquatch.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 08:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If your spirituality was to predict anything about the outside world, then it would be valid to say that it gives answers. If we called a team of scientists (or experts of ur area, psychics, if u like  ), they wouldn’t be able to see the same that you see, and consequently there’s no way they could unanimously make a prediction.
That's why I say that in the spiritual area, science is not the proper tool. But, if you have a group of highly spiritual people looking at something, they would see what I see. They have, I've done the test to make sure I was not seeing things. Therefore, it is unanimous. But the prediction is something else... see below.
Quote:
When you cant make even a basic prediction using your spiritual guidance, its too ambitious to even think you can understand the complex structure which causes such predictable phenomena happen. (take for example “positive and negative energies”; can u predict and demonstrate any phenomenon concerning them, which could persuade people in the practical relevance of your theories? I don’t think so. Well, scientists can, and that’s why we choose to believe them.)
Spirituality works in steps. I am have not reached a level where I can predict what will happen in the same sense that science can on the physical level. However, I can understand it better. Indeed, different colors of energy signify different moods of people. I can (with great effort and the right settings) see the color and determine the mood of a person.
And I just found an example of prediction; if I look at someone and transmit enough energy (intentionnaly or not), that person will turn around and look at me. We've all experienced this before. Some of us can control it and actually use it. For example, if I'm on the bus, I can predict that someone will look at me, using part of my spirituality
This nis a perfect example of p[attern recognition behavior. Statistically, few people ride the bus without frequently looking around at other people. On top of this is the fact that humans will always pay attention to the "hits" and ignore the "misses". In your bus riding example, i would wager that you unconciously dismiss all of the times when you hald expected someone to look your way when they did not but you are keenly aware of the times when you are thinking "Look over here" and someone does.
This is what keeps people at the blackjack tables and roulette wheels in casinos, losing money for hours on end. We recall with glee every time we hit the jackpot/get three blackjacks in a row, etc. but we do not make much note of every instance of betting 5$ and losing.
In short, "spirituality" is not needed to explain people looking at you and the idea that people's free will's could be so subverted by your psychic ability(forcing them to look at you rather than do whatever they wanted to do) borders on the immoral.
As a side note to Svarog: You are correct that "rationalism" was the name of an long dead philosophical movement that was anything BUT "rational"(seemingly one of the earliest cases of spiritualists hijacking scientific or logical terminology to lend credence to nonsense) but I don't think this is what Shiva was talking about when she accused you of "rational thinking".
If I were you I would take pride in the fact that the worst your ideological opponents can legitimately say of you is that you think rationally  .
EDIT:
@Conan:
You say that you can see "auras" or some enery surrounding people. I have read all of your various descriptions in this thread adn I think I have an interesting experiment for you...
Find a wall that is approxiamtely six feet high, with no ceiling(someone taller could peer over the wall). You go sit in a chair or whatever is comfortable some distance away form the wall and facing said wall.
Now have a person who is just an inch shy of being six feet tall(5'11") walk behind the walll(on the opposite side) and quietly and randomly move back and forth and you watch their aura and report the person's position, direction and such as he moves.
If you can do that, you will easilly win 1 million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation adn do a great service for science and the progress of humanity!
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
TheAsgard
Adventuring Hero
Wise and helpful being
|
|
posted September 05, 2005 12:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, I am a card carrying 'skeptic' myself. I am one of those guys who seeks to spoil everyone's fun by revealing how psychics perform their con-artistry and exposing the logical flaws in spiritualist/supernaturalist arguments.
We skeptics are not so because we are mean-spirited or (the ever popular) "closed minded" or arrogant. Skepticism is all about open-mindedness. It demands that one be open minded enough to accept unpleasant or undesireable truths.
Well I am afraid that I must agree with Conan, I myself know what it is that he is seeing because I have this ability my self, but I have developed it through my practices of paganism. I think that you need to be open minded with this topic and look beyond the fundementals of Common Phychics. This stuff is about the good bending the elements to our will in order to help others, including healing. This seems to be what Conan has discovered, an ability to heal through the Auror. may people may not believe in these abilities but the are thier for the world to discover.
The creator(s) have provided many elements and if you believe that they are not their to be used be people they why are they there in the first place if not to be discovered for our benefit. We do not want to push our ways onto anyone that is why many keep to themselves and work our good behind the scenes.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 03:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Conan:
You say that you can see "auras" or some enery surrounding people. I have read all of your various descriptions in this thread adn I think I have an interesting experiment for you...
Find a wall that is approxiamtely six feet high, with no ceiling(someone taller could peer over the wall). You go sit in a chair or whatever is comfortable some distance away form the wall and facing said wall.
Now have a person who is just an inch shy of being six feet tall(5'11") walk behind the walll(on the opposite side) and quietly and randomly move back and forth and you watch their aura and report the person's position, direction and such as he moves.
If you can do that, you will easilly win 1 million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation adn do a great service for science and the progress of humanity!
Seeing auras is not seeing through walls. In the experiment you mention, I would surely fail, yet I still see them. Explanation? I might.
In the world of energy, if you don't mind calling it, you see the energy that surrounds us all. (Bear with me... ) But, the beings that live in that world must know where objects are aswell, or else someone sitting in a chair would make no sense to them; they need to know there is a chair there. That being said, no-living materials have an aura aswell, very much different from ours, yet they do posses one. I can tell you that out of experience aswell.
Now, one last thing. I did not come out and tell you all my experiences for you to judge me and make fun of me by telling me I'd win millions of dollars from the James whatever foundation. I answered you with respect and I would like to be given that same respect. I've noted that you are a sceptic; yet sceptism does not lead to a disrespect of what you do not believe. Hence, if you will discuss such topics with me directly by mentionning my name in your posts, I would appreciate the same respect I am showing you now.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
TheAsgard
Adventuring Hero
Wise and helpful being
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 01:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you can do that, you will easilly win 1 million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation adn do a great service for science and the progress of humanity!
I must again side with Conan, I do not approve of your colsed minded smart alicness. The ability of sencing/seeing aurors and being able to use this to heal others is not something for you to make a joke at. It is people like you that cause the splits in society and create outcasts. Many people have come far beyond the middle ages of burning at the stake and are welcoming the New Age way of thinking and the use of alternative medicines.
People such as Conan are and my self are brining foward a new way of helping 'people-kind'. do not think that your self absorbed comments of winning money and seeing through walls will detur us for what we do.
obviously you have no concept of what the world has provided for our use. Seeing aurors does not men you can see through walls, its not x-ray vission. Take note of what you say on this topic because if you comment to the wrong person it could have negative results.
"Don't judge a book by it cover."
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 03:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@Conan:
You say that you can see "auras" or some enery surrounding people. I have read all of your various descriptions in this thread adn I think I have an interesting experiment for you...
Find a wall that is approxiamtely six feet high, with no ceiling(someone taller could peer over the wall). You go sit in a chair or whatever is comfortable some distance away form the wall and facing said wall.
Now have a person who is just an inch shy of being six feet tall(5'11") walk behind the walll(on the opposite side) and quietly and randomly move back and forth and you watch their aura and report the person's position, direction and such as he moves.
If you can do that, you will easilly win 1 million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation and do a great service for science and the progress of humanity!
Seeing auras is not seeing through walls. In the experiment you mention, I would surely fail, yet I still see them. Explanation? I might.
No. You misunderstand. I am saying in the above experiment that you SHOULD be able to see ABOVE the wall, where the person's "aura" is surrounding his body/head(it would, theoretically extend for an inch or two above the wall would it not?). Therefore, if these "auras" exist and they surround the body in such a way as you describe, you won't have to see "through" the wall...just ABOVE it, to note where the person is standing and the direction he moves.
ANother experiement would be to have someone stand on the opposite side of a wall adn place his hand near the edge of the wall, were you cannot see his hand but should be able to see the "aura" extending beyond his fingertips. Then indicate teh exact position of his hand behind the wall.
Quote:
In the world of energy, if you don't mind calling it, you see the energy that surrounds us all. (Bear with me... ) But, the beings that live in that world must know where objects are aswell, or else someone sitting in a chair would make no sense to them; they need to know there is a chair there. That being said, no-living materials have an aura aswell, very much different from ours, yet they do posses one. I can tell you that out of experience aswell.
Then you SHOULD be able to perform an experiment as I have described above. THat is only one, off the cuff example of, what is called in science, a "controlled experiment". The thing is that you are making an extraordinary claim, scientifically speaking but the only evidence you offer here is ordinary evidence(anecdotes about yopur "personal experiences" and such). That does not fly. It is akin to me claiming that I can communicate with invisible pink unicorns but the only evidence I offer are tales of my "personal experiences" of recieving wisdom from the unicorns.
Quote:
Now, one last thing. I did not come out and tell you all my experiences for you to judge me and make fun of me by telling me I'd win millions of dollars from the James whatever foundation.
I did not judge you or make fun of you and I am offended that you are charging me with such behavior. When I decide to make fun of you, you will know it, believe me.
My refernce to Randi's million dollar prize was not a joke. James Randi has a long standing offer to ANYONE who can demonstrate abilities such as you describe to pay one million dollars. Thus far, not a single person has been able to do so. All you would have to do is to perform this aura reading in such a way that experiemental controls rule out mundane explanations such as deception/cheating, misperception etc.
You can find out more here: www.randi.org/
Quote:
I answered you with respect and I would like to be given that same respect.
As I have done. Where on earth are you getting the idea that I disrespected you?!? If you are expecting me to respond by rolling over and being conciliatory towards your claims, then sorry but I am not obligated to do that for ANY "beliefs", be it Nazism, psychics, religion, parapsychology or perpetual motion machines.
I think I am well within the CoC of these boards to challenge your CLAIMS so long as I don't go attacking YOU personally.
Quote:
I've noted that you are a sceptic; yet sceptism does not lead to a disrespect of what you do not believe.
Correct. And Anti-skepticism should not lead to the disrespect YOU are dolling out here.
Quote:
Hence, if you will discuss such topics with me directly by mentionning my name in your posts, I would appreciate the same respect I am showing you now.
Please use the quote function and show me where I have disrespected you in my reply. I would be happy to apologize for such. It is customary for a person making such allegations to substantiate them using the quote function so there is no having to guess at what you may possibly be refering to.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you can do that, you will easilly win 1 million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation and do a great service for science and the progress of humanity!
I must again side with Conan, I do not approve of your colsed minded smart alicness.
I have not been "closed kinded" or "smart Alec". I am starting to think that my being a native English speaker and you not being so is what is contributiong to your misunderstandings. I realize it is difficult to communicate in a secondary language but that does not give you the right to go off attacking me personally and making false charges against me.
If you have questions about something I say then ASK ME what I mean. Don't just assume I was trying to insult someone.
Quote:
The ability of sencing/seeing aurors and being able to use this to heal others is not something for you to make a joke at.
1)I did not "make a joke at" this.
2)Your beliefs do not warrant some elevated status over anyone else's beliefs in that they are somehow off limits to being made light of. Your "aura sensing", new age stuff is not ANY more substantiated than someone's belief that the earth is flat. That is not a joke or an insult. I mean that literally. THere is zero evidence suggesting a flat earth and there is zero evidence to suggest that "auras" exist.
Quote:
It is people like you that cause the splits in society and create outcasts.
No guy. It is people like me that enable for things like vaccinations and penicillin to replace "voodoo" and "exorcisims" as medical treatments. Reality does not care what YOU would like for it to be. You can want for mystical things to be true so bad that that is hurts inside and reality will still be whatever it is.
I just love how we that point out unpleasant truths are treated as if we were the ones burning witches and the like. It was not skeptics that burned people at the stake. It was SPIRITUALISTS! It is not skeptics who are robbing people of billions of dollars every year by selling them snake oil and shark cartiledge and psychic readings...it is new age/spiritual "mystics" and con men preying upon their gullibility.
A big reason why we go around "telling people what they should already know"(as The Amazing Randi once said) is because we care about people. We do not want to see our grandmothers forking over their life savings to con men. We do not want to see our children paying John Edward $2,000 a seat so that he can run his scams on them.
Quote:
Many people have come far beyond the middle ages of burning at the stake and are welcoming the New Age way of thinking and the use of alternative medicines.
Yes but so what?! This is an argumentum ad populum(appeal to popularity). A logical fallacy. Critical thinking is a rare ability thus far. If it were not so then people like Einstein and Asimov would not be special at all. Everyone would be able to see though mystical shell-games and everyone would be a skeptic.
The fact remains that the reason WHY there are billions of dollars in the industry of "alternative medicine" and new age practices is simply because most people do not understand or know a thing about biology, medicine, physics or science in general.
Quote:
People such as Conan are and my self are brining foward a new way of helping 'people-kind'.
No you are not. This stuff you guys are advocating is as old as recorded history(older even). People believed in ghosts, gods and magic long before there was any real science(as a methodology). Ironically, these spiritual/mystical beliefs were an evolutionary adaption that enabled us to survive better at one point(e.g. When we feared "night spirits" we were less apt to walk into a tar pit or off a cliff in the darkness) but now these beliefs are having the opposite effect. They are leading to honest people getting bilked, terrorism/fantacism of all kinds, persecution etc.
Quote:
do not think that your self absorbed comments of winning money and seeing through walls will detur us for what we do.
I never said ANYTHING about "seeing through walls" and I am going to ask you ONE TIME to please be more respectful. You can call me names and accuse me of being an unsavory character when you have reason to do so. But my not believing in your mysticism or explaining how these beliefs arise is NOT good reason to insult or disrespect me.
Quote:
obviously you have no concept of what the world has provided for our use.
Bald assertion.
Quote:
Seeing aurors does not men you can see through walls, its not x-ray vission.
Never said it was.
Quote:
Take note of what you say on this topic because if you comment to the wrong person it could have negative results.
"Don't judge a book by it cover."
?!? What?!? Are you threatening me?!?
Grow up junior.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 04:34 PM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 6 Sep 2005
|
(if this question has been discussed please let me know... I skimmed through many posts but didn't see the topic i'd like to raise...)
I'd like to ask those who have stated they don't believe in religion a question... you say you are spiritual but not religious so Im curious, do you celebrate Christmas??
And if you do, considering you don't believe in religion, are you only celebrating the commercialism of the holiday? in what context do you celebrate the holiday then?
(just curious)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 04:46 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 6 Sep 2005
|
USAtheis,
Please accept my sincere apologies. When you talked about the Foundation, I really thought your where mocking me. Please do understand that I don't normally talk about this kind of stuff to anyone and that it took alot for me to put it on here for others to read.
And it seems I missunderstood your experiment aswell... (I don't know what I was thinking when I read your post! )
I thought about that for a moment and it's an excellent experience to be made. The only problem is that the colours that surround people only appear after having looked beside them for a few moments. And I can certainly not see the colour and swirls when someone is moving. Hence, if I may, I would like to shorten the wall to 3 feet, have me sit on one side and the other person sit anywhere behind the wall, without my knowledge and try to detect where the person is sitting. Now that would be more feasable with my capabilities. The only problem is that what I see is only about 1 inch or 2... so if the wall is just a bit too tall, I will not be able to see and the experience will fail....
I find it interesting to read you as I am a skeptic myself, beleave it or not. The "controlled experiences" you are talking about is a concept I am very familiar with since we use them all the time in the Master's degree I am completing. While I understand your skepticism and even live it myself, I talk about what I do see. It's not a beleif I have, it's reality to me. For me, there is no way around it. Being immersed in science myself, please do remember that science does not prove everything and is constantly evolving. As such, it can be dangerous to only beleive what science tells you, as you could be closing your mind to much more than is science. This is only a suggestion, not a lecture
In any case, I caught a line about you not breaking the CoC... I just want to say that this discussion was never concerning the CoC. I might be a mod, but I was talking as a member here with you. As of yet, you've never broken the lines of the CoC and it's nice to see yet another contributing member that joins HC.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 05:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(if this question has been discussed please let me know... I skimmed through many posts but didn't see the topic i'd like to raise...)
I'd like to ask those who have stated they don't believe in religion a question... you say you are spiritual but not religious so Im curious, do you celebrate Christmas??
And if you do, considering you don't believe in religion, are you only celebrating the commercialism of the holiday? in what context do you celebrate the holiday then?
(just curious)
Christmas is a pagan holdiay called "Yule", originally. On Yule, the men would go out, find and cut down a tree so large that it would burn for twelve days and nights while the pagans sang, drank and danced about having fun. The Christians witnessed this and, not wanting to be left out of the fun, joined in. Eventually, fundementalists saw their own hypocrisy and tried to outlaw the holdiay in England but by then, most Christians had already rationalized that it would be the day that Christ's birth was celebrated(even though the Bible clearly states that he was born in the spring or early summer).
Same deal with "Easter" which was originally a pagan holday in honor of a fertility goddess(named "Ester" or somesuch IIRC) who took the form of a rabbit and lay her rainbow colored eggs in various hiding spots for people to find.
The point being that, even non-religious atheists can celebrate Christmas today because it means different things to different people. Atheists celebrate the tale of Santa Claus and similar (now)secular ideas for example.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 05:11 PM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 6 Sep 2005
|
nicely played...
(that was an exellent arguement)
( I kinda wish you would have waited!! now I bet most others will claim the same as you! )
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 06:54 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
Quote:
USAtheis,
Please accept my sincere apologies. When you talked about the Foundation, I really thought your where mocking me. Please do understand that I don't normally talk about this kind of stuff to anyone and that it took alot for me to put it on here for others to read.
No problem. It is notoriously difficult to clearly convey intent adn meaning on message boards, even when everyone is speaks English natively.
Quote:
I thought about that for a moment and it's an excellent experience to be made. The only problem is that the colours that surround people only appear after having looked beside them for a few moments.
?
I do not follow. You mean that the auras do not show up unless you can stare directly at the person for a few moments? So theoretically, you could still have someone stand behind a wall, with their head above the wall(so you can stare at them for a few moments) but with their hand placed somewhere along the edge of the wall(but out of view) and you should be able to tell exactly where, between the hip and shoulder, that person is holding their hand, correct?
Quote:
And I can certainly not see the colour and swirls when someone is moving.
This does not make sense to me. Why would the auras disapear when someone moves? Technically, aren't we ALWAYS in motion? Only the dead can remain in such relative stasis as far as I know.
Quote:
Hence, if I may, I would like to shorten the wall to 3 feet, have me sit on one side and the other person sit anywhere behind the wall, without my knowledge and try to detect where the person is sitting. Now that would be more feasable with my capabilities.
How would shortening the wall be more effective?
Also, teh problem with your revisions is that this is no longer a properly controlled experiment. A controlled experiment must be able to rule out mundane explanations such as cheating or random guessing as liklely. It seems by making the wall smaller and limiting the person's movement, you are making these mundanities more feaseable.
Quote:
The only problem is that what I see is only about 1 inch or 2... so if the wall is just a bit too tall, I will not be able to see and the experience will fail....
That is why we measure everything before hand. MAke sure we have someone who is exactly the height we need, in comparison with the wall.
Another variation would be to get 10 sleeping bags. Fill nine of them with realistic looking dummies( with real hair and perhaps with anamatronic respiratory functions) and one with a relatively unclothed human being who is trained to not give away tell tale signs of his organic nature(fidgeting and such).
Unzip the tops of the sleeping bags to allow for just the tops of the heads of the occupants to poke out. Then you can tell which one is the real human by noting where the aura is emanating from.
Quote:
I find it interesting to read you as I am a skeptic myself, beleave it or not.
Not trying to be disrespectful or anything herer but in my experience, most people in general adn most paranormalists have no idea what a skeptic is in the sense that I use the term. Often people claim to be a "skeptic themselves" but they have a different idea of what a skeptic is than what we actually are.
For example, your very claim of aura reading is completely contrary to what skeptical reasoning would indicate and no skeptic would assent to this claim based upon the information you have provided. The evidence is unconvincing and sketchy, you provide no mechanism by whcih your claim could work(e.g. Where does this alleged "energy" emanate from and what causes it? How does movement prevent this emanation? etc.) and a host of rationalizations for why we cannot scientifically measure such a thing as "auras".
Energy is always detectable and quantifiable. There is no mysterious energy classification that does not have sense-contents or percievable & physical effect on the environ.
Quote:
The "controlled experiences" you are talking about is a concept I am very familiar with since we use them all the time in the Master's degree I am completing. While I understand your skepticism and even live it myself, I talk about what I do see. It's not a beleif I have, it's reality to me.
The difference between a "belief" adn a "reality" is that a reality can be objectively adn concurrently observed/demonstrated. A belief is only claimed to be observed/demonstrated by believers. I know that you used the qualifier "reality to me." but to this I can only say that delusions are reality to those who experience them but that does not make them real, objectively.
Quote:
For me, there is no way around it. Being immersed in science myself, please do remember that science does not prove everything and is constantly evolving. As such, it can be dangerous to only beleive what science tells you, as you could be closing your mind to much more than is science. This is only a suggestion, not a lecture
The thing is that you are PRESUMING that there is "something more" or something "beyond" the material(and therefore beyond the reach of science) without regards to rules of inference. I am not being "closed minded" by dissenting from such claims until I have reason to think they have merit. I am being rational.
Science is not some grand body of a knowledge. It is a method for examining reality which stems from logic and rationality. So IF these "auras" are part of reality, then science should be able to reveal them. Something cannot be a part of reality adn also be "beyond science". That is a logical contradiction(something cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A').
Quote:
In any case, I caught a line about you not breaking the CoC... I just want to say that this discussion was never concerning the CoC. I might be a mod, but I was talking as a member here with you. As of yet, you've never broken the lines of the CoC and it's nice to see yet another contributing member that joins HC.
I believe that line was in response to the guy(can't remember his handle) who charged in here, guns blazing and accusing me of all manner of skullduggery and insult but I could be wrong. In any case, my point was simply that critiquing claims and ideas is not = insulting or disrespecting people themselves.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 07:21 PM |
|
|
Oh My God...
(Pun intended)
USAthiest, reveal thyself. I think we know one another. You didn't, perhaps used to be a philsophy professor at the University of Southern Colorado, did you?!?!?!
If you are who I believe you are, you're not going to believe who I am...
(Unless you've been swimming in an ice cream soda lately....)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 07:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No problem. It is notoriously difficult to clearly convey intent adn meaning on message boards, even when everyone is speaks English natively.
I am French actually
Quote:
?
I do not follow. You mean that the auras do not show up unless you can stare directly at the person for a few moments? So theoretically, you could still have someone stand behind a wall, with their head above the wall(so you can stare at them for a few moments) but with their hand placed somewhere along the edge of the wall(but out of view) and you should be able to tell exactly where, between the hip and shoulder, that person is holding their hand, correct?
Well, what I see only forms after a few moments of me looking at a person, and it forms around the part of the body I am looking at. For example, I see people everyday walking about, but I don't see cloud of color everywhere. It is also easier to see on a white background, the color is then more apparent. So, no, I connot see the cloud around one's hand if I am looking a their head. And the cloud around their head is much more distinguished than that around the rest of their bodies.
Quote:
Why would the auras disapear when someone moves? Technically, aren't we ALWAYS in motion? Only the dead can remain in such relative stasis as far as I know.
Well, I mean big motion, like walking or moving rapidly. If a person sits or stands, then it becomes easier. The cloud does not dissapear when someone moves, it's my perception of it that dies. Then when the person stops moving, the cloud reappears.
Quote:
For example, your very claim of aura reading is completely contrary to what skeptical reasoning would indicate and no skeptic would assent to this claim based upon the information you have provided. The evidence is unconvincing and sketchy, you provide no mechanism by whcih your claim could work(e.g. Where does this alleged "energy" emanate from and what causes it? How does movement prevent this emanation? etc.)
It is hard to be skeptic of one's perception. It is not because I provide no mechanism by which my claim could work that their is none. I am just not prepared to talk about this at the moment with the few members of this thread. I have my own resons of where it emanates and what causes it. But I can tell you that I've meat people that can see it even when people are moving. I beleive my capabilities have not reached their full potential.
I say I am a skeptic myself because that's what the university has taught me. To question everything and to not beleive anything at a first glance. It's a very good thing. But what if you where to see what I see. Would you be skeptical about yourself? What would you do?
Quote:
The difference between a "belief" adn a "reality" is that a reality can be objectively adn concurrently observed/demonstrated. A belief is only claimed to be observed/demonstrated by believers. I know that you used the qualifier "reality to me." but to this I can only say that delusions are reality to those who experience them but that does not make them real, objectively.
LOL. So now I am delusionnal and so is everyone that shares my experiences? Or is it my brain that doesn't function properly? I am not trying to mock you here, but go back several hundred years when they killed people for thinking the world was round. Hostility can emanate from those who might seem different because it's a threat to everything we know and beleive in.
Quote:
IF these "auras" are part of reality, then science should be able to reveal them. Something cannot be a part of reality adn also be "beyond science". That is a logical contradiction(something cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A').
I disagree. Since, a long time ago, proved many things wrong. That same science changed the experiments and then modified it's conclusions. Hence, my point is that many things are a reality, but sadly are beyong science, because science is not necesarily pure reality. It would love to be, it strives to be, but is not perfectly.
My point is that science evolves. It's not because science cannot prove the existance of aura's today that it will not prove it in 500 years. What was science in the past, is not the same science today.
Quote:
In any case, my point was simply that critiquing claims and ideas is not = insulting or disrespecting people themselves.
I obviously agree, and am happy to notice you see things in this way.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted September 06, 2005 10:58 PM |
|
|
QP applied to USAtheist, excellent posts
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2005 01:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(Pun intended)
USAthiest, reveal thyself. I think we know one another. You didn't, perhaps used to be a philsophy professor at the University of Southern Colorado, did you?!?!?!
If you are who I believe you are, you're not going to believe who I am...
(Unless you've been swimming in an ice cream soda lately....)
LOL. Nope...sorry but I am not your former professor and I have never lived in Colorado.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2005 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No problem. It is notoriously difficult to clearly convey intent and meaning on message boards, even when everyone is speaks English natively.
I am French actually
Exactly. There are many people here who speak English as a secondary(tertiary?) language(and I applaud them as I can speak no other language besides English).
Quote:
Quote:
?
I do not follow. You mean that the auras do not show up unless you can stare directly at the person for a few moments? So theoretically, you could still have someone stand behind a wall, with their head above the wall(so you can stare at them for a few moments) but with their hand placed somewhere along the edge of the wall(but out of view) and you should be able to tell exactly where, between the hip and shoulder, that person is holding their hand, correct?
Well, what I see only forms after a few moments of me looking at a person, and it forms around the part of the body I am looking at. For example, I see people everyday walking about, but I don't see cloud of color everywhere. It is also easier to see on a white background, the color is then more apparent. So, no, I connot see the cloud around one's hand if I am looking a their head. And the cloud around their head is much more distinguished than that around the rest of their bodies.
Then what you have here is an unflaifiable claim. There is no concieveable controlled test which could be devised to show that your "auras" existed adn they will forever be indistinguishable from imaginary things(for skeptics/critical thinkers).
Quote:
Quote:
Why would the auras disapear when someone moves? Technically, aren't we ALWAYS in motion? Only the dead can remain in such relative stasis as far as I know.
Well, I mean big motion, like walking or moving rapidly. If a person sits or stands, then it becomes easier. The cloud does not dissapear when someone moves, it's my perception of it that dies. Then when the person stops moving, the cloud reappears.
How would you know whether it was teh "cloud" itself or just your perception? You would have to be still percieving it in some way to say whether the cloud itself was or was not "dying", no?
Quote:
Quote:
For example, your very claim of aura reading is completely contrary to what skeptical reasoning would indicate and no skeptic would assent to this claim based upon the information you have provided. The evidence is unconvincing and sketchy, you provide no mechanism by which your claim could work(e.g. Where does this alleged "energy" emanate from and what causes it? How does movement prevent this emanation? etc.)
It is hard to be skeptic of one's perception.
Perhaps, but nopt so much for skeptics like myself. I was not always a skeptic. In fact, for most of my life I was firmly on your side of the fence, believing in numerous things that I now recognise as either misperceptions, delusions or me decieving myself into believing what I wanted to believe. But as a skeptic nowadays I am able to stop adn go through a mental checklist of possible explanations when I encounter/percieve anything "weird".
I use Occam's Razor to deal with teh extraordinary. If I cannot rule out mundanities like me being delusional(due to illness or my blood sugars falling(I am a diabetic) or some such) or allowing pattern recognition to get the best of me, then I do not assent to the extraordinary/mystical/paranormal.
Thus far I have ALWAYS been able to find natural/mundane explanations for anything seemingly out of the ordinary.
For example: If I were seeing "auras" surrrounding people on a crowded bus but no other person on the bus was reacting or seemed to be having similoar experineces, I would conclude that it was I who was at odds with reality and not everyone else who was lacking some "aura sense" ability.
Quote:
It is not because I provide no mechanism by which my claim could work that their is none. I am just not prepared to talk about this at the moment with the few members of this thread.
What I mean by "mechanism" is the scientific sense of the term. A mechanistic explanation of how organ/body part 'X' generates an "aura" and (more importantly) what is so different about some people's eyes(yours for example) that allow them to see this "energy" in the visual spectrum while most people do not. If an eye doctor or neurosurgeon or some such were to examine your sensory faculties, what would he find that would infer that your senses worked differently or better than the typical human's and allowed for you to see an energy that otehrs do not? Why is this alleged energy visually percievable but not detectable by any technological devices(all other forms of energy we know of are often perceptable in the opposite fashion. That is we can only first detect them or their effects using high tech devices to enhance our sight-ability)?
Without such mechanisms, the claim is every bit as invalid to a skeptic or scientist as the claim that Valhalla exists or dragons.
Quote:
I have my own resons of where it emanates and what causes it. But I can tell you that I've meat people that can see it even when people are moving. I beleive my capabilities have not reached their full potential.
I say I am a skeptic myself because that's what the university has taught me. To question everything and to not beleive anything at a first glance. It's a very good thing. But what if you where to see what I see. Would you be skeptical about yourself? What would you do?
First of all, the "question everything" is an oversimplification of modern skepticism. Skepticism is examining extraordinary claims with critical thought adn logic/rationality. That means not only having a mechanism for such claims but being able to readily explain such to other skeptics. It also means to keep an eye out for logical fallacies and avoid relying on them. It is using the methods of science to investigate all claims about reality(observe, hypothesize, test, attempt to falsify, repeat).
What makes you think I have not "seen" the same things you have "seen"? Back when I was on the non-skeptical side of this issue, i said many of the same things..."This is not a "belief", it is a FACT! I have experienced it and you(the skeptic) will not understand until you have my experience!".
Problem is, this was absolutely false. I cannot speak for you or your own experiences but I was a victim of my own pattern seeking belief mechanism. I was 100% convinced that I had experienced what I claimed to have experienced! I was not "lying"(for the most part anyway).
The human brain is a funny thing. One of it's amazing powers is to be able to convince us of things which are patently false. What is telling about extraordinary claims is the evidence offered for them. You see IF the claims for "auras"(for example) are completely false, we would expect to see exactly the sort of evidence and argument you are offering here(personal experiences, rationalizations for why controlled tests cannot be conducted etc.). I do not mean this as insult or disrespect(though what I am telling you will probably be taken that way). This is a simple fact. It is the same with the Roswell/UFO-coverup people. If no UFO(extraterrestrial craft) has ever visited our planet, we would see EXACTLY the same evidence that we currently see from UFOlogists! If UFOs HAVE visited us then we would see, at some point, spacecraft showing up on radar, debris from crashed ships, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
The difference between a "belief" and a "reality" is that a reality can be objectively adn concurrently observed/demonstrated. A belief is only claimed to be observed/demonstrated by believers. I know that you used the qualifier "reality to me." but to this I can only say that delusions are reality to those who experience them but that does not make them real, objectively.
LOL. So now I am delusionnal and so is everyone that shares my experiences?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there ARE many natural explanations(ordinary explanations) such as delusion, deceit, misperception, false memories/pattern recognition, etc. which MUST be conclusively ruled out BEFORE we can say that such claims have any likelihood of being true!
Quote:
Or is it my brain that doesn't function properly? I am not trying to mock you here, but go back several hundred years when they killed people for thinking the world was round. Hostility can emanate from those who might seem different because it's a threat to everything we know and beleive in.
Couple of errors here:
1)People who were persecuted/killed for saying the world was not flat were so persecuted by MYSTICS, spiritualists adn the like...NOT skeptics. Your analogy is a false anaology because aknowledging a sperical earth is NOT analogous to claiming that "souls" or "auras" exist.
2)You are also presenting an appeal to consequences(which is another logical fallacy), by suggesting that these paranormalists are purposefully hiding the evidence of these gifts/traits because they will be subjected to proverbial "witch hunts".
We cannot even get away with torturing terrorists nowadays and even gays and atheists are protected by libertarian laws adn attitudes. It is highly unlikely that we will be persecuting the sorts of people we tend to almost WORSHIP!
For an example of what I mean, go check out how much crap professional skeptics catch from "believers". People like Randi and Shermer get death threats, personal attacks and false accusations regularly, simply for exposing such things as psychics and the like as frauds while people like John Edward and Sylvia Browne have gobs of money thrown at them so fast they cannot even grab it all!
Quote:
Quote:
IF these "auras" are part of reality, then science should be able to reveal them. Something cannot be a part of reality adn also be "beyond science". That is a logical contradiction(something cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A').
I disagree. Since, a long time ago, proved many things wrong. That same science changed the experiments and then modified it's conclusions.
What you are refering to is teat science is self-correcting. It is open to the influx of new data/evidence and scientists(for the most part...there have been a few historical exceptions) are open minded enough to aknowledge ANY new facet of reality that is discovered!
For example: if we discovered a vampire tomorrow, this creature would be classified as Homo Nocturnus and characterized by hemoglobin sustenance dependency and a non-reflective skin condition as well as an allergy to garlic. Science would then start studying the species to understand it's mechanistic workings and this creature would be a part of reality adn thus subject to scientific examination.
Contrary to anti-skeptic assertions, scientists would not stand outside the vampire's cage denying it existed!
Like the vampire above, if your "auras" exist, they are subject to scientific study. Science is not about denying aspects of reality which we find strange or unexpected. it is about expanding what is known and understood to INCLUDE such things where they, in fact, exist.
Quote:
Hence, my point is that many things are a reality, but sadly are beyong science,
And again, this is false. There is not a single thing which is part of reality which science cannot scrutinize. This is a common, though still erroneous bald assertion.
Quote:
because science is not necesarily pure reality.
Science is not "pure reality", no. It is a METHODOLOGY for examining reality, whatever realtiy may be(including auras adn souls if they are real).
Quote:
It would love to be, it strives to be, but is not perfectly.
Nothing is "perfect" because perfection is a nonsense concept that has no real meaning. But this is, again a "gap argument". Just because we have not looked under a particular rock yet does not mean that a three headed "giraffosaurus" is possibly living under it!
Quote:
My point is that science evolves. It's not because science cannot prove the existance of aura's today that it will not prove it in 500 years. What was science in the past, is not the same science today.
Yes but this is still a gap argument and science is not "evolving" as it once was. The methodology has been almost static since we got to the point of it's current development. As things stand, there is no real "deficiency" of science itself. Only the standard limits of language and symbolic logic that crop up in philosophical discussion. Science evolved a great deal from 2,000 years ago(when such nonsense as astrology was thought to be scientific) to the time of Galileo. Somewhat less from Galileo to Newton and FAR less from Newton to Einstein.
There are somethings which are simply impossible, like it or not. We may not know every single thing which is impossible to exist but we know enough about the physical universe and it's workings to be able to rule out a great deal(such as transcendent gods, perpetual motion machines, time travel and magic).
Trust me that I would LOVE to live ina universe where people had mystical auras/souls, extra-sensory perception, afterlife existence, etc.
But reality is not going to transform because I or a billion others want such.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
| |
|
|
