Which Scam is Greater: The Unbiased Version. - Page 2

Phi · 1st September 2008, 16:46

thank also for not typing a huge response lol my eyes have started hurting from being online for like the past 24 hours, i fuckin love 3 day weekends.

To be honest i haven't looked into stem cells research beyond what is presented to me via the news all though i did read they have been able to produce the same resaults from normal cells out of adult mice now, i thought that was interesting.

I was talking mostly about archeological discoveries and cosmology, To spare us both time and effort i won't even elaborate but there is and has been vast amounts of information filtering.

Rhygar · 1st September 2008, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phi

I was talking mostly about archeological discoveries and cosmology, To spare us both time and effort i won't even elaborate but there is and has been vast amounts of information filtering.

Sorry got ahead of myself again in previous post. Promise to keep it short this time.

Ah, yes. I have an inkling of what you mean. Things they found does not gel well with current theories. I've heard of some of these.

See... I'm done.

Phi · 1st September 2008, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhygar

Sorry got ahead of myself again in previous post. Promise to keep it short this time.

Ah, yes. I have an inkling of what you mean. Things they found does not gel well with current theories. I've heard of some of these.

See... I'm done.

lol

Traceur · 2nd September 2008, 09:21

"it is an important and popular fact that things aren't always what they seem".

and for that reason, we have natural philosophy, the act of explaining the universe around us. science, is an example of one type of natural philosophy which has taken notice that the universe - like all entities after a certain age - tends to slip into repetitive routines.

the "scam" is not in science itself - probability theory can occasionally have useful results such as the one we're communicating through - the problem is scientists. you see, scientists are people, and people is a word we use to apply to "extremely problematic organisms", or EPO for short.

for one thing, EPO's are hypocrites: if they would apply the scientific paradigm on researching science itself, they would see that the laws of probability are against them: science changes theories all the time, creating more and more theories proven wrong by the one theory proven right. probability-wise, that means there are always more disproven scientific theories then proven ones, and the number goes up exponentially. so scientifically speaking, the belief that science can explain the universe goes against the laws of probability and is thus in itself unscientific.

the second problem with EPO's, is that too many of them are believers. this means that while some scientists truely view things through terms of probability, the majority of the atheists who lookup to science and - possibly due to our incredibly silly system of education - the majority of low profile scientists - believe in current theories in face value. science has become a tradition, and thus fall to the same problems. personally for example i find it very hard to even question the theory of evolution: i was raised with that belief. for me it's a simple one liner logic - if offsprings have differences in their blood from their parents (mutation) then you can trace it back and everything alive here one earth is one big family. ofcourse i realize rationally that the past can not be proven because it can't be observed, but "i believe in evolution", because that's how my parents tought me, and there's no difference between that and religious mentality.

and that brings us to a problem of scientific history: scientists are not only people, they are also a western sub-culture, and like every opressed people, it was molded by the circumstances put forth by it's opressors - the christian monothaist belief system. science needed to actively compete with western religion in order to gain enough support against the church's opression, and it did so by comforming to offer the same things the church offers: absolute terms, defining the universe in absolutes, by which any theory must explain everything and the univese must be consistent, as if the universe does not contain paradoxes. even the big bang theory is based around gravitational laws which we now found to be wrong (dark matter is mostly a patchwork of explaining the mitakes), but it's still widely supported, almost as if it was a political peace treaty between scientists and monothaists. the world doesn't contain paradoxes? ofcourse it does. what a silly monothaist notion.
__________________________________________________ _

conclusion: observe the universe, be inspired by it, it's a good move to look around you. but do not expact it to follow your rules.
__________________________________________________ __

now theology is great - it combines natural philosophy and spirituality. it recognizes that things are not always what they seem, and that we are limited by our perception, thus we need to delve into our intuitions. but religion? religion instetutionalizes it. and that's always a bad move, as a general rule of thumb, once you insteutionalize something it's going to go rotten. it has two major side affects:
1) instetuionalizing stuff puts it in the hands of the beaurocrats, and beaurocrats do not apriciate change. they are unflexible people, who are often not very nice, and will get very angry for the silliest things.
2) it creates a mean for power over what other people think, a very useful tool in the hand of the manipulative.
_________________________________________

conclusion: believe, think for yourself and draw realizations and hold them as self avident truths of your own truth. but do not let peple tell you what to think and what to believe at, nor should you do the same to others.

__________________________________________

i'm out of time folks...

Victor · 2nd September 2008, 12:47

hehe fun thread.

Cye · 2nd September 2008, 15:44

Hands down: Religion.
The other choices are certainly incredibly severe, but none to the religious extent. Religion as caused several Wars, some of which are still going on today. Religion has caused rulers to be beheaded, while responsible for putting others in office. Religion has made many blindly give their life for what they believe. A 2,000 year old book of stories including talking snakes is still defended as truth even now in modern day.

I could go on a 6-page rant about why Religion is both the best and worst thing to happen to this species.

I'm also a skeptic of Global Warming. For those of you that want a VERY educated opinion on Global Warming, check this link:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speec...talfuture.html

It's an incredible speech.

misteradam · 5th September 2008, 04:40

i agree that religion is the largest of the bullshit stories.

i mean come on, a bunch of people have been killing each other over a fucking desert wasteland for hundreds of years.

View Poll Results: Which Scam is Greater: The Unbiased Version
1. Global Warming	8	17.39%
2. Religion	30	65.22%
3. Science	1	2.17%
4. Spirituality	1	2.17%
5. Non of the above	4	8.70%
6. All of the above	2	4.35%
7. Other (explain if desired)	0	0%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

2nd September 2008, 09:21	#44 (permalink)
Traceur Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,924 Rep Power: 8	"it is an important and popular fact that things aren't always what they seem". and for that reason, we have natural philosophy, the act of explaining the universe around us. science, is an example of one type of natural philosophy which has taken notice that the universe - like all entities after a certain age - tends to slip into repetitive routines. the "scam" is not in science itself - probability theory can occasionally have useful results such as the one we're communicating through - the problem is scientists. you see, scientists are people, and people is a word we use to apply to "extremely problematic organisms", or EPO for short. for one thing, EPO's are hypocrites: if they would apply the scientific paradigm on researching science itself, they would see that the laws of probability are against them: science changes theories all the time, creating more and more theories proven wrong by the one theory proven right. probability-wise, that means there are always more disproven scientific theories then proven ones, and the number goes up exponentially. so scientifically speaking, the belief that science can explain the universe goes against the laws of probability and is thus in itself unscientific. the second problem with EPO's, is that too many of them are believers. this means that while some scientists truely view things through terms of probability, the majority of the atheists who lookup to science and - possibly due to our incredibly silly system of education - the majority of low profile scientists - believe in current theories in face value. science has become a tradition, and thus fall to the same problems. personally for example i find it very hard to even question the theory of evolution: i was raised with that belief. for me it's a simple one liner logic - if offsprings have differences in their blood from their parents (mutation) then you can trace it back and everything alive here one earth is one big family. ofcourse i realize rationally that the past can not be proven because it can't be observed, but "i believe in evolution", because that's how my parents tought me, and there's no difference between that and religious mentality. and that brings us to a problem of scientific history: scientists are not only people, they are also a western sub-culture, and like every opressed people, it was molded by the circumstances put forth by it's opressors - the christian monothaist belief system. science needed to actively compete with western religion in order to gain enough support against the church's opression, and it did so by comforming to offer the same things the church offers: absolute terms, defining the universe in absolutes, by which any theory must explain everything and the univese must be consistent, as if the universe does not contain paradoxes. even the big bang theory is based around gravitational laws which we now found to be wrong (dark matter is mostly a patchwork of explaining the mitakes), but it's still widely supported, almost as if it was a political peace treaty between scientists and monothaists. the world doesn't contain paradoxes? ofcourse it does. what a silly monothaist notion. __________________________________________________ _ conclusion: observe the universe, be inspired by it, it's a good move to look around you. but do not expact it to follow your rules. __________________________________________________ __ now theology is great - it combines natural philosophy and spirituality. it recognizes that things are not always what they seem, and that we are limited by our perception, thus we need to delve into our intuitions. but religion? religion instetutionalizes it. and that's always a bad move, as a general rule of thumb, once you insteutionalize something it's going to go rotten. it has two major side affects: 1) instetuionalizing stuff puts it in the hands of the beaurocrats, and beaurocrats do not apriciate change. they are unflexible people, who are often not very nice, and will get very angry for the silliest things. 2) it creates a mean for power over what other people think, a very useful tool in the hand of the manipulative. _________________________________________ conclusion: believe, think for yourself and draw realizations and hold them as self avident truths of your own truth. but do not let peple tell you what to think and what to believe at, nor should you do the same to others. __________________________________________ i'm out of time folks... __________________ stop looking at my post count!it's not a habit, it's cool, i feel alive.... welcome to the TBC!

1st September 2008, 16:46	#41 (permalink)
Phi Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 271 Rep Power: 1	thank also for not typing a huge response lol my eyes have started hurting from being online for like the past 24 hours, i fuckin love 3 day weekends. To be honest i haven't looked into stem cells research beyond what is presented to me via the news all though i did read they have been able to produce the same resaults from normal cells out of adult mice now, i thought that was interesting. I was talking mostly about archeological discoveries and cosmology, To spare us both time and effort i won't even elaborate but there is and has been vast amounts of information filtering.

2nd September 2008, 12:47	#45 (permalink)
Victor Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Lund, Sweden Posts: 257 Rep Power: 1	hehe fun thread.

2nd September 2008, 15:44	#46 (permalink)
Cye Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 216 Rep Power: 1	Hands down: Religion. The other choices are certainly incredibly severe, but none to the religious extent. Religion as caused several Wars, some of which are still going on today. Religion has caused rulers to be beheaded, while responsible for putting others in office. Religion has made many blindly give their life for what they believe. A 2,000 year old book of stories including talking snakes is still defended as truth even now in modern day. I could go on a 6-page rant about why Religion is both the best and worst thing to happen to this species. I'm also a skeptic of Global Warming. For those of you that want a VERY educated opinion on Global Warming, check this link: http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speec...talfuture.html It's an incredible speech.

5th September 2008, 04:40	#47 (permalink)
misteradam Newbie Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 0	i agree that religion is the largest of the bullshit stories. i mean come on, a bunch of people have been killing each other over a fucking desert wasteland for hundreds of years.