What negative symptoms of schizophrenia does Jesus' history imply?
Amazing how we are coming to common ground again.
Not sure about the negative symptoms. Positive symptoms are more dramatic of course, so get a more lurid description in the Bible. I might presume to ask you to see if there are any relevant references, as I can't see me sitting down and reading the New Testament any time soon. Would rather sepnd the time playing musci, and it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually aiming to change your mind about tnything here.
My initial comments I made about Jesus were actually just me exercising my freedom to express my opinion just as teh faithful feel free to express theirs. I fugured I would be lowled down or dismissed as a loony and I prety much was. "Outlandish", I think was teh dismissal phrase, but IMO my opinion about Jesus is less outlandish than the notion that he ws teh snoo of the creator of the Universe. Now that is outlandish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not sure about the negative symptoms. Positive symptoms are more dramatic of course, so get a more lurid description in the Bible. I might presume to ask you to see if there are any relevant references, as I can't see me sitting down and reading the New Testament any time soon. Would rather sepnd the time playing musci, and it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually aiming to change your mind about tnything here.
My initial comments I made about Jesus were actually just me exercising my freedom to express my opinion just as teh faithful feel free to express theirs. I fugured I would be lowled down or dismissed as a loony and I prety much was. "Outlandish", I think was teh dismissal phrase, but IMO my opinion about Jesus is less outlandish than the notion that he ws teh snoo of the creator of the Universe. Now that is outlandish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, it looks like we've basically hashed this thing out. I'll leave your opinion--if it even is your real opinion--be. I can't help with bible references. I'm very non-bible-savvy. I don't know a lot about Jesus, except basically from sunday school. My spiritual understandings have come from within, and don't really include Jesus. I realize you are not asking me to change my mind. Peace.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Originally Posted by Jeanie
Ahnimus, please don't patronise me. I spent 13 years working in a laboratory for farks sake! I've spent plenty of time around science and scientists. And I have read and seen plenty of scientific data and experiments.
And I think you'll find that people are fallable. And that scientists are humans just like the rest of us. AND my point is that science has been proven wrong as well as "right" AND "right" is only what we or scientists know now.
I guess the thing that I'm struggling with most here is that you have been scornful of other people's perspectives and beliefs but you seem to me to be sounding just a wee bit evangelical about science and scientists and their bloody experiments. So how is your absolute belief in science any different to other people's beliefs in things that you just don't agree with?
i'm back... anyways, I quickly noticed this... I didn't care to read any of the other posts so this may have been said...
I agree that science has been proven wrong and "right" is as "right" as the scientist currently know... HOWEVER... at least science CONTINUES to look at the thing and try to get to the correct answer eventually... where you have religion that has one answer "god did it" (or some other oogy booggy thing like that) and leaves it at that with no further explanation.
i've been drinking so maybe this will sound stupid in the morning
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
Okay, it looks like we've basically hashed this thing out. I'll leave your opinion--if it even is your real opinion--be. I can't help with bible references. I'm very non-bible-savvy. I don't know a lot about Jesus, except basically from sunday school. My spiritual understandings have come from within, and don't really include Jesus. I realize you are not asking me to change my mind. Peace.
Peace to you too sister !! I was going to suggest that there needs to be a "Schizophrenia Monologues", where it is brought out of the closet and understood properly and de-shamed alongside the vagina. But, the result might be school kids getting suspended for saying "schizophrenia".
So, while science tells us a lot about our physical world, it is not the only guide we should have in this life.
i agree and disagree at the same time.
science does tell us a TON about our world. but as we know, our brains are much more sophisticated than that. So, do i believe at the current time that it would be easier for us to understand some things with science AND something else? yes. do i believe that one day we will finally, as humans, grasp what our mind is capable of and will be able to comprehend it and no longer have a need for "religions" etc... yes. that day may be a hundred years from now or 10,000 years from now but eventually we will get there.
as for right now, i suppose i'm ok with people having "faith" in some things (like i said earlier) i just thing its ridiculous that there are people out there who use religion to "answer" everything and make elitist statements like they "see" or "know" something that only people who are "special" can also appreciate.
an i even making sense?
maybe i'll go lie down
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
Peace to you too sister !! I was going to suggest that there needs to be a "Schizophrenia Monologues", where it is brought out of the closet and understood properly and de-shamed alongside the vagina. But, the result might be school kids getting suspended for saying "schizophrenia".
Never mind, peace again !!!!!!!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
science does tell us a TON about our world. but as we know, our brains are much more sophisticated than that. So, do i believe at the current time that it would be easier for us to understand some things with science AND something else? yes. do i believe that one day we will finally, as humans, grasp what our mind is capable of and will be able to comprehend it and no longer have a need for "religions" etc... yes. that day may be a hundred years from now or 10,000 years from now but eventually we will get there.
as for right now, i suppose i'm ok with people having "faith" in some things (like i said earlier) i just thing its ridiculous that there are people out there who use religion to "answer" everything and make elitist statements like they "see" or "know" something that only people who are "special" can also appreciate.
an i even making sense?
maybe i'll go lie down
Oh dude, don't think for a second that I am anything other than a rabid athiest. I am not suggesting for even a nanny-second that religion has nay other use than startn wars and inciting mayhem and murder.
But teh guides I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts. I guess I was mostly trying to paraphrase what Jeanie was saying, to ackowledge the limitations of science withotu deriding it's value. It's scince that makes this computer owrk , for example.
Oh dude, don't think for a second that I am anything other than a rabid athiest. I am not suggesting for even a nanny-second that religion has nay other use than startn wars and inciting mayhem and murder.
But teh guides I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts. I guess I was mostly trying to paraphrase what Jeanie was saying, to ackowledge the limitations of science withotu deriding it's value. It's scince that makes this computer owrk , for example.
"I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts."
i agree.
I also agree that science does have its limitations... again without deriding its value.
I know I can't speak for anyone here but myself. I know for the most part i'm over my head in this conversation. As far as I can tell, most of you are a good bit older than me and have "figured" things out...
I'm young and still am trying to completely hash out my own beliefs. it is hard to "change" and acquire your own belief system when you've been taught to think a certain way for 90% of your life.
I don't agree with many of the things stated in this thread but I can appreciate why some people think one way and others think differently.
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
"I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts."
i agree.
I also agree that science does have its limitations... again without deriding its value.
I know I can't speak for anyone here but myself. I know for the most part i'm over my head in this conversation. As far as I can tell, most of you are a good bit older than me and have "figured" things out...
I'm young and still am trying to completely hash out my own beliefs. it is hard to "change" and acquire your own belief system when you've been taught to think a certain way for 90% of your life.
I don't agree with many of the things stated in this thread but I can appreciate why some people think one way and others think differently.
Well, yes, definitely an old fart. If you are trying to figure out your own belief system, rather than blindly swallowing aother, then you are miles ahead of the game. I have never really settled on a fixed belief system, rather as I have learnt stuff, my beliefs evolve. I acutally don't believe in too much. Knowledge is too slippery for that and keeps evolvinfg and changing. I thinkit's one of the reasons why people distrust science. one week "they" say one thing, next week "they" say another. People like the certainty of religion, unchanging dogmatic ideas that persist for a cole of thousand years have a reassusring and tereliable solidity, even if they are completely ludicrous.
To summarise, the more I learn, the less I know. I might put that in my sig.
Ahnimus, please don't patronise me. I spent 13 years working in a laboratory for farks sake! I've spent plenty of time around science and scientists. And I have read and seen plenty of scientific data and experiments.
And I think you'll find that people are fallable. And that scientists are humans just like the rest of us. AND my point is that science has been proven wrong as well as "right" AND "right" is only what we or scientists know now.
I guess the thing that I'm struggling with most here is that you have been scornful of other people's perspectives and beliefs but you seem to me to be sounding just a wee bit evangelical about science and scientists and their bloody experiments. So how is your absolute belief in science any different to other people's beliefs in things that you just don't agree with?
i'm back... anyways, I quickly noticed this... I didn't care to read any of the other posts so this may have been said...
I agree that science has been proven wrong and "right" is as "right" as the scientist currently know... HOWEVER... at least science CONTINUES to look at the thing and try to get to the correct answer eventually... where you have religion that has one answer "god did it" (or some other oogy booggy thing like that) and leaves it at that with no further explanation.
i've been drinking so maybe this will sound stupid in the morning
Gee I don't know that I agree with that scw156. Religion has definitely changed over the years and I think that if you take all religions into consideration then you would have to say that religion has searched for and supplied answers to the faithful. You only have to look at the changes the catholic church or the differences in christianity since the crusades even. You may not like religion, can't believe I'm defending it myself actually, BUT they have changed and will continue to change.
And I don't think you sound stupid. Having been drinking or otherwise.
Just hope your head doesn't hurt when you wake up. Don't forget to re hydrate!
We came from micro organisms billions of years ago, we adapted and evolved to our environments. All of our senses are there to detect a stimulus in the environment. Pets sometimes try to pretend they are human and it doesn't quite work out. It doesn't matter how hard they try to communicate with us, they just can't use telepathy. But they can through their behaviour communicate. It may seem like telepathy to us because we are animals that are good at learning.
I don't see how we could have evolved any senses that we aren't using. We lose 40% of our neurons and white matter during synaptogenesis because there is nothing for them to do. As hard as we may try, I think we are just stuck with the rest of the animals. There is cosmic stuff out there, but until we get some kind of warp drive we aren't going there. I can imagine an interconnectedness type thing, or Chi/Ki, stream of life, whatever you want to call it. Scientifically speaking it could be positively charged ions if you wanted it to be. Ultimately it doesn't mean anything, except you might be able to get some kind of magnetic accessory to manipulate it. Like the Chi Biomagnetic Bracelet TM Koolatron.
I guess I'm just not understanding people's ideas cause perhaps they aren't explained very well. Or maybe I just speak a different language. A lot of religions or beliefs now at least attempt to work with science. They say the dalai lama sits down with neuroscientists and agrees on everything, he says if science and buddhism conflict science wins. I think some people don't really understand the scientific method. Because they will say evolution is flawed, or bias, or whatever, then believing in something completely unfounded. I mean, science isn't a structured religion. What happens is, some dude, doctor or scientist does something and then they are supposed to let other scientists see it. But a lot of the times they just take it to the press. It gets a headline and people who don't investigate or follow-up on it actually believe it to be true. Something like that happened with a fashion gene, that dude in korea that made claims about cloning, Masaru Emoto. There is all kinds of guys out there making claims they can't back up, years later after no one can reproduce the results, it gets ignored. The scientist still does his research and pushes his idea, as long as he has funding. No one can stop him, if he has money. So you really have to take the headlines with a big grain of salt, and you have to follow up on them, or just ignore them and read articles from actual scientific journals.
If you do that with science you can get a really solid understanding of a lot of things that will probably always be true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If you do that with science you can get a really solid understanding of a lot of things that will probably always be true.
Couldn't agree more. However, science can only get certain information through strict operationalizations, which in their nature is simplifying reality. So if you try to add up all science to get the complete picture of the world, you get a very reductionist and superficial picture. Since all the parts you put in is the result of simplification, that is a serious problem. Neuroscience reduces emotions to neurotransmitters, and I as a sociologist may reduce the population which are unhappy to the unemployed and those with small incomes. It's in the nature of operationalization.
So I take what knowledge I can from science, but I don't look to scientists for meaning and the whole picture. The words of the dalai lama you quoted is very reasonable. What science can say something about, they win. But otherwise, buddhism provides the way and guides us. I'm not buddhist though, but I can agree to that mindset. There are more than science can explain, or at least explain fully.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Absolutely. Simply put, scientism is the linking of fact and value. There is no church, no steeple, no priest, no book, no doctrine, no beliefs, no faith, no congregation. It's entirely up to the individual to extrapolate their own values. It is nothing like religion.
sorry to rehash old news,.. i just think this topic is truly interesting.
im a bit confused though, Ahnimus. if scientism is nothing like religion, then how is it not entirely like science? this is a twisted question, i know, but i just cant distract religious sentiments from your descriptions of scientism, even if those sentiments arise from scientific principles (they're still being deployed [in theory] as religious-activities--which is not to say "as a Religion" per-se, but "religiously" [ya know, in the way that even drinking could be a religion, for example].
i'd like to link this idea to art at some point, because i think there is an infinite realm of relevance to this conversation,.. but we'll have to get passed what scientism is before we could talk about why scientism might ought to be.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
We came from micro organisms billions of years ago, we adapted and evolved to our environments. All of our senses are there to detect a stimulus in the environment. Pets sometimes try to pretend they are human and it doesn't quite work out. It doesn't matter how hard they try to communicate with us, they just can't use telepathy. But they can through their behaviour communicate. It may seem like telepathy to us because we are animals that are good at learning.
I don't see how we could have evolved any senses that we aren't using. We lose 40% of our neurons and white matter during synaptogenesis because there is nothing for them to do. As hard as we may try, I think we are just stuck with the rest of the animals. There is cosmic stuff out there, but until we get some kind of warp drive we aren't going there. I can imagine an interconnectedness type thing, or Chi/Ki, stream of life, whatever you want to call it. Scientifically speaking it could be positively charged ions if you wanted it to be. Ultimately it doesn't mean anything, except you might be able to get some kind of magnetic accessory to manipulate it. Like the Chi Biomagnetic Bracelet TM Koolatron.
I guess I'm just not understanding people's ideas cause perhaps they aren't explained very well. Or maybe I just speak a different language. A lot of religions or beliefs now at least attempt to work with science. They say the dalai lama sits down with neuroscientists and agrees on everything, he says if science and buddhism conflict science wins. I think some people don't really understand the scientific method. Because they will say evolution is flawed, or bias, or whatever, then believing in something completely unfounded. I mean, science isn't a structured religion. What happens is, some dude, doctor or scientist does something and then they are supposed to let other scientists see it. But a lot of the times they just take it to the press. It gets a headline and people who don't investigate or follow-up on it actually believe it to be true. Something like that happened with a fashion gene, that dude in korea that made claims about cloning, Masaru Emoto. There is all kinds of guys out there making claims they can't back up, years later after no one can reproduce the results, it gets ignored. The scientist still does his research and pushes his idea, as long as he has funding. No one can stop him, if he has money. So you really have to take the headlines with a big grain of salt, and you have to follow up on them, or just ignore them and read articles from actual scientific journals.
If you do that with science you can get a really solid understanding of a lot of things that will probably always be true.
and when God created those organisms; he started this little science experiment we call earth.
sorry to rehash old news,.. i just think this topic is truly interesting.
im a bit confused though, Ahnimus. if scientism is nothing like religion, then how is it not entirely like science? this is a twisted question, i know, but i just cant distract religious sentiments from your descriptions of scientism, even if those sentiments arise from scientific principles (they're still being deployed [in theory] as religious-activities--which is not to say "as a Religion" per-se, but "religiously" [ya know, in the way that even drinking could be a religion, for example].
i'd like to link this idea to art at some point, because i think there is an infinite realm of relevance to this conversation,.. but we'll have to get passed what scientism is before we could talk about why scientism might ought to be.
i'm religious and i don't have a church. but the church in this case is the labratory. the priests are the scientists. the rules of scientific experimentation is the doctrine; and his strong "belief" in his conclusions constitutes the belief he doesn't admitt to.
the priests are the scientists. the rules of scientific experimentation is the doctrine; and his strong "belief" in his conclusions constitutes the belief he doesn't admitt to.
i think "he" does admit to belief in evolution, or would if pressed (assuming you were refering to Ahnimus).
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
and when God created those organisms; he started this little science experiment we call earth.
Right, so God created Science and therefor science is correct.
Except... there is no God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I get up in the morning, go to work, sit at work all night and go home. Occasionally I'll hit the bar, go up north to visit the family or play a sport. I don't need God, Buddha, or any supernaturalism to do that. I don't see how any of that matters. What are people doing that higher retribution is required in their life? Just do what you are supposed to do and don't worry about it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh I see, no one wants to admit they are afraid to die.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I get up in the morning, go to work, sit at work all night and go home. Occasionally I'll hit the bar, go up north to visit the family or play a sport. I don't need God, Buddha, or any supernaturalism to do that. I don't see how any of that matters. What are people doing that higher retribution is required in their life?.
hmm,..
i hear you. the problem with religions [speaking of institutions] is that everyone needs something unique, yet the masses find themselves entangled in very similar "solutions", and so indoctrination has occurred and accultured the global mess of conflicts which we now watch battle on the political stage(s).
Just do what you are supposed to do and don't worry about it.
i think some individuals feel they are supposed to worry about "it", as you say.
there are real problems that demand real solutions,...
but i agree with you whole-heartedly, spirituality does not require either scientific knowledge or religious dogma,.. [rather,.. "personality" seems to work just fine].
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Theres a black man with a black cat
Living in a black neighbourhood
Hes got an interstate runnin through his front yard
You know, he think, that hes got it so good
And theres a woman in the kitchen cleanin up the evening slop
And he looks at her and says: hey darling, I can remember when you could stop a clock
Chorus:
Oh but aint that america for you and me
Aint that america were someting to see baby
Aint that america, home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
Well theres a young man in a t-shirt
Listening to a rockin rollin station
Hes got a greasy hair, greasy smile
He says: lord, this must be my destination
cuz they told me, when I was younger
Boy, youre gonna be president
But just like everyting else, those old crazy dreams
Just kinda came and went
Chorus:
Oh but aint that america for you and me
Aint that america were someting to see baby
Aint that america, home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
Well theres people and more people
What do they know know know
Go to work in some high rise
And vacation down at the gulf of mexico
Ohhh yeah
And theres winners, and theres losers
But they aint no big deal
cuz the simple man baby pays for the thrills,
The bills and the pills that kill
Chorus:
Oh but aint that america for you and me
Aint that america were someting to see baby
Aint that america, home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i hear you. the problem with religions [speaking of institutions] is that everyone needs something unique, yet the masses find themselves entangled in very similar "solutions", and so indoctrination has occurred and accultured the global mess of conflicts which we now watch battle on the political stage(s).
Yea, everyone wants to be unique. Like the goth girl who is not a goth, but all her friends are goth and she looks like them. Then I ask, what is not goth about her?
I've met a number of people like this in different sub-cultures. They want uniqueness so they go Emo or Punk, or Goth or something. Then end up meeting a bunch of other people like them. Then they will say they are not like the others, they are unique.
Fuck that, I'm like the other billions of people on the planet. I got a brain, skin, skeletal system and some muscle tissue. No piercings, tattoos or other bodily augmentations. Perhaps that makes me unique for just being happy with what I am.
i think some individuals feel they are supposed to worry about "it", as you say.
there are real problems that demand real solutions,...
but i agree with you whole-heartedly, spirituality does not require either scientific knowledge or religious dogma,.. [rather,.. "personality" seems to work just fine].
Certainly there are political issues which our governments deal with and they are elected by us. So I suppose it does matter what we think, but certainly not on a day-to-day manner. Also saying "God" doesn't scare me and it doesn't do anything for darfur.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
sorry to rehash old news,.. i just think this topic is truly interesting.
im a bit confused though, Ahnimus. if scientism is nothing like religion, then how is it not entirely like science? this is a twisted question, i know, but i just cant distract religious sentiments from your descriptions of scientism, even if those sentiments arise from scientific principles (they're still being deployed [in theory] as religious-activities--which is not to say "as a Religion" per-se, but "religiously" [ya know, in the way that even drinking could be a religion, for example].
i'd like to link this idea to art at some point, because i think there is an infinite realm of relevance to this conversation,.. but we'll have to get passed what scientism is before we could talk about why scientism might ought to be.
I suggest that sciences goal is to discover facts and scientisms goal is to interpret those facts and apply values to them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, everyone wants to be unique. Like the goth girl who is not a goth, but all her friends are goth and she looks like them. Then I ask, what is not goth about her?
I've met a number of people like this in different sub-cultures. They want uniqueness so they go Emo or Punk, or Goth or something. Then end up meeting a bunch of other people like them. Then they will say they are not like the others, they are unique.
Fuck that, I'm like the other billions of people on the planet. I got a brain, skin, skeletal system and some muscle tissue. No piercings, tattoos or other bodily augmentations. Perhaps that makes me unique for just being happy with what I am.
i am not so polar on this topic. i know i am very much like everyone else, each in our own unique cross-hairs of similarity, and in that way we are each Naturally [unavoidably] unique. i think my job is to always become the best me that i might ever become.
Certainly there are political issues which our governments deal with and they are elected by us. So I suppose it does matter what we think, but certainly not on a day-to-day manner. Also saying "God" doesn't scare me and it doesn't do anything for darfur.
continuing from what i just said, maintaining the best me that i might ever become does indeed require daily thoughts and concerns about political issues. but this can be extrapolated to societies also, so moreover i feel a deep need for producing "art", even if i dont make a living from "it", or especially if i dont make my living that way. [outsider art is inherently more fascinating than "professional" types].
i read an article this morning that is relevant,......
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Comments
Amazing how we are coming to common ground again.
Not sure about the negative symptoms. Positive symptoms are more dramatic of course, so get a more lurid description in the Bible. I might presume to ask you to see if there are any relevant references, as I can't see me sitting down and reading the New Testament any time soon. Would rather sepnd the time playing musci, and it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually aiming to change your mind about tnything here.
My initial comments I made about Jesus were actually just me exercising my freedom to express my opinion just as teh faithful feel free to express theirs. I fugured I would be lowled down or dismissed as a loony and I prety much was. "Outlandish", I think was teh dismissal phrase, but IMO my opinion about Jesus is less outlandish than the notion that he ws teh snoo of the creator of the Universe. Now that is outlandish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not so certain about the "afterlife". At least not at my age. Maybe as I get older...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
hmmmmmm chocolate.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ahnimus, please don't patronise me. I spent 13 years working in a laboratory for farks sake! I've spent plenty of time around science and scientists. And I have read and seen plenty of scientific data and experiments.
And I think you'll find that people are fallable. And that scientists are humans just like the rest of us. AND my point is that science has been proven wrong as well as "right" AND "right" is only what we or scientists know now.
I guess the thing that I'm struggling with most here is that you have been scornful of other people's perspectives and beliefs but you seem to me to be sounding just a wee bit evangelical about science and scientists and their bloody experiments. So how is your absolute belief in science any different to other people's beliefs in things that you just don't agree with?
i'm back... anyways, I quickly noticed this... I didn't care to read any of the other posts so this may have been said...
I agree that science has been proven wrong and "right" is as "right" as the scientist currently know... HOWEVER... at least science CONTINUES to look at the thing and try to get to the correct answer eventually... where you have religion that has one answer "god did it" (or some other oogy booggy thing like that) and leaves it at that with no further explanation.
i've been drinking so maybe this will sound stupid in the morning
The Sentence Above Is False
Peace to you too sister !! I was going to suggest that there needs to be a "Schizophrenia Monologues", where it is brought out of the closet and understood properly and de-shamed alongside the vagina. But, the result might be school kids getting suspended for saying "schizophrenia".
Never mind, peace again !!!!!!!
i agree and disagree at the same time.
science does tell us a TON about our world. but as we know, our brains are much more sophisticated than that. So, do i believe at the current time that it would be easier for us to understand some things with science AND something else? yes. do i believe that one day we will finally, as humans, grasp what our mind is capable of and will be able to comprehend it and no longer have a need for "religions" etc... yes. that day may be a hundred years from now or 10,000 years from now but eventually we will get there.
as for right now, i suppose i'm ok with people having "faith" in some things (like i said earlier) i just thing its ridiculous that there are people out there who use religion to "answer" everything and make elitist statements like they "see" or "know" something that only people who are "special" can also appreciate.
an i even making sense?
maybe i'll go lie down
The Sentence Above Is False
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Oh dude, don't think for a second that I am anything other than a rabid athiest. I am not suggesting for even a nanny-second that religion has nay other use than startn wars and inciting mayhem and murder.
But teh guides I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts. I guess I was mostly trying to paraphrase what Jeanie was saying, to ackowledge the limitations of science withotu deriding it's value. It's scince that makes this computer owrk , for example.
"I was referring to I guess are own humanistic moral compasses, as well as other ethical ideas philosophies and principals, which I believe should not revolve around coercive patriarchial punishment fearing religious concepts."
i agree.
I also agree that science does have its limitations... again without deriding its value.
I know I can't speak for anyone here but myself. I know for the most part i'm over my head in this conversation. As far as I can tell, most of you are a good bit older than me and have "figured" things out...
I'm young and still am trying to completely hash out my own beliefs. it is hard to "change" and acquire your own belief system when you've been taught to think a certain way for 90% of your life.
I don't agree with many of the things stated in this thread but I can appreciate why some people think one way and others think differently.
The Sentence Above Is False
Well, yes, definitely an old fart. If you are trying to figure out your own belief system, rather than blindly swallowing aother, then you are miles ahead of the game. I have never really settled on a fixed belief system, rather as I have learnt stuff, my beliefs evolve. I acutally don't believe in too much. Knowledge is too slippery for that and keeps evolvinfg and changing. I thinkit's one of the reasons why people distrust science. one week "they" say one thing, next week "they" say another. People like the certainty of religion, unchanging dogmatic ideas that persist for a cole of thousand years have a reassusring and tereliable solidity, even if they are completely ludicrous.
To summarise, the more I learn, the less I know. I might put that in my sig.
Gee I don't know that I agree with that scw156. Religion has definitely changed over the years and I think that if you take all religions into consideration then you would have to say that religion has searched for and supplied answers to the faithful. You only have to look at the changes the catholic church or the differences in christianity since the crusades even. You may not like religion, can't believe I'm defending it myself actually, BUT they have changed and will continue to change.
And I don't think you sound stupid. Having been drinking or otherwise.
Just hope your head doesn't hurt when you wake up. Don't forget to re hydrate!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
We came from micro organisms billions of years ago, we adapted and evolved to our environments. All of our senses are there to detect a stimulus in the environment. Pets sometimes try to pretend they are human and it doesn't quite work out. It doesn't matter how hard they try to communicate with us, they just can't use telepathy. But they can through their behaviour communicate. It may seem like telepathy to us because we are animals that are good at learning.
I don't see how we could have evolved any senses that we aren't using. We lose 40% of our neurons and white matter during synaptogenesis because there is nothing for them to do. As hard as we may try, I think we are just stuck with the rest of the animals. There is cosmic stuff out there, but until we get some kind of warp drive we aren't going there. I can imagine an interconnectedness type thing, or Chi/Ki, stream of life, whatever you want to call it. Scientifically speaking it could be positively charged ions if you wanted it to be. Ultimately it doesn't mean anything, except you might be able to get some kind of magnetic accessory to manipulate it. Like the Chi Biomagnetic Bracelet TM Koolatron.
I guess I'm just not understanding people's ideas cause perhaps they aren't explained very well. Or maybe I just speak a different language. A lot of religions or beliefs now at least attempt to work with science. They say the dalai lama sits down with neuroscientists and agrees on everything, he says if science and buddhism conflict science wins. I think some people don't really understand the scientific method. Because they will say evolution is flawed, or bias, or whatever, then believing in something completely unfounded. I mean, science isn't a structured religion. What happens is, some dude, doctor or scientist does something and then they are supposed to let other scientists see it. But a lot of the times they just take it to the press. It gets a headline and people who don't investigate or follow-up on it actually believe it to be true. Something like that happened with a fashion gene, that dude in korea that made claims about cloning, Masaru Emoto. There is all kinds of guys out there making claims they can't back up, years later after no one can reproduce the results, it gets ignored. The scientist still does his research and pushes his idea, as long as he has funding. No one can stop him, if he has money. So you really have to take the headlines with a big grain of salt, and you have to follow up on them, or just ignore them and read articles from actual scientific journals.
If you do that with science you can get a really solid understanding of a lot of things that will probably always be true.
Couldn't agree more. However, science can only get certain information through strict operationalizations, which in their nature is simplifying reality. So if you try to add up all science to get the complete picture of the world, you get a very reductionist and superficial picture. Since all the parts you put in is the result of simplification, that is a serious problem. Neuroscience reduces emotions to neurotransmitters, and I as a sociologist may reduce the population which are unhappy to the unemployed and those with small incomes. It's in the nature of operationalization.
So I take what knowledge I can from science, but I don't look to scientists for meaning and the whole picture. The words of the dalai lama you quoted is very reasonable. What science can say something about, they win. But otherwise, buddhism provides the way and guides us. I'm not buddhist though, but I can agree to that mindset. There are more than science can explain, or at least explain fully.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
sorry to rehash old news,.. i just think this topic is truly interesting.
im a bit confused though, Ahnimus. if scientism is nothing like religion, then how is it not entirely like science? this is a twisted question, i know, but i just cant distract religious sentiments from your descriptions of scientism, even if those sentiments arise from scientific principles (they're still being deployed [in theory] as religious-activities--which is not to say "as a Religion" per-se, but "religiously" [ya know, in the way that even drinking could be a religion, for example].
i'd like to link this idea to art at some point, because i think there is an infinite realm of relevance to this conversation,.. but we'll have to get passed what scientism is before we could talk about why scientism might ought to be.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
and when God created those organisms; he started this little science experiment we call earth.
i'm religious and i don't have a church. but the church in this case is the labratory. the priests are the scientists. the rules of scientific experimentation is the doctrine; and his strong "belief" in his conclusions constitutes the belief he doesn't admitt to.
i think "he" does admit to belief in evolution, or would if pressed (assuming you were refering to Ahnimus).
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
yes; i was. evolution is still a theory and even if true; who started it?
Right, so God created Science and therefor science is correct.
Except... there is no God.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I get up in the morning, go to work, sit at work all night and go home. Occasionally I'll hit the bar, go up north to visit the family or play a sport. I don't need God, Buddha, or any supernaturalism to do that. I don't see how any of that matters. What are people doing that higher retribution is required in their life? Just do what you are supposed to do and don't worry about it.
hmm,..
i hear you. the problem with religions [speaking of institutions] is that everyone needs something unique, yet the masses find themselves entangled in very similar "solutions", and so indoctrination has occurred and accultured the global mess of conflicts which we now watch battle on the political stage(s).
i think some individuals feel they are supposed to worry about "it", as you say.
there are real problems that demand real solutions,...
but i agree with you whole-heartedly, spirituality does not require either scientific knowledge or religious dogma,.. [rather,.. "personality" seems to work just fine].
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Theres a black man with a black cat
Living in a black neighbourhood
Hes got an interstate runnin through his front yard
You know, he think, that hes got it so good
And theres a woman in the kitchen cleanin up the evening slop
And he looks at her and says: hey darling, I can remember when you could stop a clock
Chorus:
Oh but aint that america for you and me
Aint that america were someting to see baby
Aint that america, home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
Well theres a young man in a t-shirt
Listening to a rockin rollin station
Hes got a greasy hair, greasy smile
He says: lord, this must be my destination
cuz they told me, when I was younger
Boy, youre gonna be president
But just like everyting else, those old crazy dreams
Just kinda came and went
Chorus:
Oh but aint that america for you and me
Aint that america were someting to see baby
Aint that america, home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
Well theres people and more people
What do they know know know
Go to work in some high rise
And vacation down at the gulf of mexico
Ohhh yeah
And theres winners, and theres losers
But they aint no big deal
cuz the simple man baby pays for the thrills,
The bills and the pills that kill
Chorus:
Oh but aint that america for you and me
Aint that america were someting to see baby
Aint that america, home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Yea, everyone wants to be unique. Like the goth girl who is not a goth, but all her friends are goth and she looks like them. Then I ask, what is not goth about her?
I've met a number of people like this in different sub-cultures. They want uniqueness so they go Emo or Punk, or Goth or something. Then end up meeting a bunch of other people like them. Then they will say they are not like the others, they are unique.
Fuck that, I'm like the other billions of people on the planet. I got a brain, skin, skeletal system and some muscle tissue. No piercings, tattoos or other bodily augmentations. Perhaps that makes me unique for just being happy with what I am.
Certainly there are political issues which our governments deal with and they are elected by us. So I suppose it does matter what we think, but certainly not on a day-to-day manner. Also saying "God" doesn't scare me and it doesn't do anything for darfur.
I suggest that sciences goal is to discover facts and scientisms goal is to interpret those facts and apply values to them.
i am not so polar on this topic. i know i am very much like everyone else, each in our own unique cross-hairs of similarity, and in that way we are each Naturally [unavoidably] unique. i think my job is to always become the best me that i might ever become.
continuing from what i just said, maintaining the best me that i might ever become does indeed require daily thoughts and concerns about political issues. but this can be extrapolated to societies also, so moreover i feel a deep need for producing "art", even if i dont make a living from "it", or especially if i dont make my living that way. [outsider art is inherently more fascinating than "professional" types].
i read an article this morning that is relevant,......
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
if God created everything, then who created God? He can't create himself.
Religion runs into the same "problem" as science when it comes to the "where did (insert thing here) come from" when you go far enough back in time
The Sentence Above Is False