The science delusion

[Kormak]

You have IMO too much faith in the system and seem to miss that results which contradict the current narrative are being actively repressed in the name of "not causing damage". For example, James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA, was stripped of honors over “reprehensible” comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected. The man is merely pointing at data, he wasn't stating his mere opinion, data ppl don't want to be true, because it clashes with their sensibilities. You are not allowed to question certain things deemed to be true even if the data to back it up exists.

This is not outside my expectations, the Nobel committee are only human, they are an important part of the scientific community but by no means are they the leaders of it, they can strip a man of his official title but they cannot take the truth from him. Many great scientists were in their time victims of the masses and their unwillingness to accept the truth but in every instance they were eventually vindicated, Galileo, Darwin, Tesla, Turing, the truth cannot be denied forever, the truth always wins.

The scientific community is not some ivory tower of academics though there are many such towers, it isn't some particular institution or organization although many of them exist, no the scientific community is more than that, it is everyone, including you and me.

You here now having this conversation with me, THAT is what I put my faith in, can you not see how the gears are already turning, their motion driven by your efforts? If you would see this man vindicated because what he speaks is the truth and assuming what he speaks is indeed the truth then he will be vindicated, the truth cannot be denied.

Rupert Sheldrake touches on other areas as well:

That is a looong video, can you summarize his more salient points?

Its not religion specifically, but what religion offers people, a sense that there is a defense against existential terror, they get a sense of meaning and purpose, guidance & reassurance. We have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization.

True and for that reason a right answer is better than a wrong one.

If someone was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer would you lie to them and tell them everything's going to be alright or would you tell them the truth?
Ponder that for a moment, have your answer ready before you open the spoiler.

Spoiler

Now suppose the circumstances were reversed and you're the one awaiting the diagnosis, would you rather be told the truth or lied to?

I wager that you would rather be told, it is your life after all and you have a right to know and that being the case why would you deny that most basic of rights to another? In a word cowardice, it is easier to lie and pretend everything's okay than to inflict such horror upon another but eventually you will pay the price for your decision, be as delusional as you like but on some level you're still going to know what you did was wrong and the guilt is going to eat you alive.

Whereas telling the truth may be awful, but you will have done your duty and your conscience will be clear.

Moving thread to avoid deariling the other one.

To answer your question, yes I would absolutely tell them the truth and would wish for people to show the same kind of honesty towards me. Being aware of the truth opens up possibilities for further action. It becomes a point in time and space which achors these possibilites. e_e I would still be dying of said cancer tho.

The thing is telling ppl they have "cancer" is still not the cure itself. We don't actually know what is going on, we know some things which point towards certain possibilities, but these are still just theories. Example, the big bang may or may not be true, its a theory among others, also a convenient mirracle.

Essentially what this does is strip people from an evolved coping mechanism and leaves them with nothing but more questions and uncertainty in an already terrifying & temporary situation. Its not going to go down well with the 80%, you can't just strip them of their psychological defense against existential terror and hope they accept it.

The summary of the video:

On the topic of religion scientism is an oxymoron, to dogmatically believe in the empiricism, the scientific method and peer review is to fundamentally misunderstand such things. However it is possible to believe in the possibilities that further scientific discoveries may bring, indeed it is strictly a matter of belief because although we may make educated guesses there's really no telling what developments the future may bring.

I speak of futurism and you wouldn't be wrong to accuse me of being religious on the grounds that I'm a futurist, I believe artificial general intelligence and long term life extension will be developed in our lifetime. I find comfort in these beliefs, so if the human mind really needs something to hope for why not give people actual hope for things that might actually happen?

See quote above.
^^; I guess thats where we differ, I question everything and everyone, including myself. I always leave the door open for alternative possibilites. Its probably why I wasn't religious from the start and couln't become one even when I tried. The fact that we don't actually know much & there is a lot left to discover is exciting to me. Most ppl can't seem to deal with this tho, faith in something or someone is the norm.

I recommend reading his book along with The God Delusion (I asume you already read the latter)

e_e its just an hour of him talking, jezz you sound like my brother, low attention span:

 

[computerhxr]

Thank you for sharing this. It is nice to hear someone speak so clearly on the topic.

I have had these debates with friends and in the forum many times, and have come to a few conclusions.

Science is a religion.

Cancer is a product of disease, and disease is a product of meta instability, which both science and religion stabilize. So in a sense, it is a cure in itself.

Having a fixed structure and definition is important to ensure a relatively reliable medium of exchange. If we change base assumptions, it is disruptive to the entire network.

Observation is measurement, everything affects everything, all observes all.

Purpose is a product of manifestation through conscious intention. We are our own intelligent designers.

The universe itself is a dialectical synthesizer. This is reflected throughout the universe.

Science thrives on challenge. Religion is in diametric opposition to science. I am grateful for both.

 

[scorpiomover]

On the topic of religion scientism is an oxymoron, to dogmatically believe in the empiricism, the scientific method and peer review is to fundamentally misunderstand such things.

One of the big problems with science is precisely this.

According to science, if someone tells you that the Sun goes aroung the Earth, or the Earth goes around the Sun, you're supposed to tell them to go to Hell until you see clear, consistent evidence that proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.

So when it comes to claims about science itself, like if science is dogmatic or if it's like a religion, or what peer review actually makes happen IRL, or any other general claim about science, we are supposed to be scientifically sceptical and say those claims flattering and praising science are just hocus pocus to sell snake oil to gullible people, and should be rejected until we have tested those claims with lots of scientific experiments.

Have you tested the peer review process? How many times, approximately? How did you test it? What were your experiments and observations and what were your results? What were your conclusions as a result of your experiments?

These are the questions we should be asking of peer review. Till then, it's got as much scientific proof as "pin the tail on the donkey".

The same goes for the rest of the claims about science.

 

[Rebis]

It seems rather simple to put religion and science on equal terms when one has given us incredibly reliable and consistent expectations as a result of observations while the other has been inconsistent. Truth is limited by the fact we're limited by our ability to observe, so instead of reovlving around these concepts of "perfection" and realising nothing is infallible let's strip it down to core components:

-That which is reliable grants us greater probability to achieve an outcome.
-Greater probability in a world which we have not explored fully is the only logical outcome.
-We falsify probabilities, through elimination to regiment the possibilities of an action.
-Through the narrowing of possibilities, we can have relative foresight.
-Foresight is the main proponent of science, not truth.
-Truth is eternal and never changing, if a statement is true it infers we have foresight relating to the subject.
-Since truth is unattainable except in closed models, which our universe is not, then foresight is the closest proximal control we have over the world.

Religion and science are only equivalent in terms of modelling the universe. One is consistent, observable, practicable, constructive and narrows the anticipation of outcomes stemming from events. The other doesn't predict anything with reasonable foresight, lending to abstraction such as good and evil, heaven and hell and the likes which do not quantify the world by any means.

Ideations are limited by the mind, which religion and science are a product of. That is their similarities: They do not have the same functionality, relative truth or chained reasoning. I think his point is a very simple one to make: Absolute skepticism, almost soliphistic in nature, which is just an idea that exists merely because it is an idea, rather than evidence supporting the claim.

 

[Kormak]

I'll make it simple, dogma of any kind in authoritarian institutions, be that religious or otherwise limits the exploratrion of possibilities and consequently potential discoveries through the scientific method elude our grasp. That is what he is saying. He is trying to set science free.

Idk why ppl get so butthurt as if he is attacking your sacred cow or something, when its not the case. He is a scientist himself. The very fact that science has become a sacred cow to so many is alarming in itself, aparently it leads to dogmaticism... who would have guessed.

We don't understand the nature of reality in principle at this point. A lot of what we think we know might change or be reinforced with new discoveries, it has in the past. That is how science works.

When "science" has become your sacred cow, you should start asking yourself why.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

Rupert Sheldrake is a crank. Finding real problems with Big Science doesn't change the fact that his new age woo is bullshit.

 

[Rebis]

I can't see any substance here, really.

Science has its limitations, evidently. It is subject to limitations like any other ideological structure. There isn't a logical alternative to making observations that imply, probablistically that the events of x suggest that of y.

You could say I'm butthurt but I absolute despise this mode of reasoning: skepticism in the face of evidence, rather than that of opposition. A parallel thread to this would be people saying as a counter point "you never know": we don't expect to be certain, but given observations that anticipates outcomes we can gather this is probable.. "but.... you never know"

What is science anyways? Are we just going to oppose the only knowledge base which has advanced our society, for what: because we don't truly know? Am I supposed to oppose observations where I can consistently deduce the outcomes? The world is reality, science tries to understand that reality. Often, it gives the most accurate model for anticipating events.

"He is a scientist"
"He wants to set science free"
"Science is dogmatic"
"That is how science works"

All these comments point to a flustered mesh, maybe that's why it's annoying.

Y'know what doesn't annoy me? When science is proven wrong by contrary theories based on observations. I don't mind that at all. What annoys me is being skeptic so not to be decieved, in search for absolute truth (which is as close to religion as you can get) in opposition to observations that are repeatedly, and consistently observable and have real life applications.

Fundamentally it is observing events that occur in the material world. I am naturally never going to oppose some intuitive, sensory-bound model of reality that conjures such a deduction, because I have no other medium of information which is testable. I am bound to my environment, actions occur in this environment, that is all I can measure.

It is the rational option to observe what you don't understand and infer the outcomes of that event. What other model is there that we can exercise to infer information? Skepticism? No, that does not infer knowledge, it only infers that something may be wrong by postulating we are limited in our understanding. Skepticism can't even provide evidence, or information of any kind, that isn't a product of observation and logical inference.

"Science" in the current can be disproven, but until it is I shouldn't operate on conjecture. That would ber rather baseless, wouldn't you say? Science as a force is ever changing so unlike others, I don't see it as concrete, I see it the only substrate available to infer knowledge from. If I deny that I deny anything I observe.

 

[Kormak]

Rupert Sheldrake is a crank. Finding real problems with Big Science doesn't change the fact that his new age woo is bullshit.

Its irrelevant really, he still has to submit his ideas to the scientific method. If its bullshit its bullshit and he can come up with new ideas to test.

His point is clear to me at least. Fuck dogma.

"He is a scientist"
"He wants to set science free"
"Science is dogmatic"
"That is how science works"

e_e he never says science is dogmatic. You misunderstood.

Again I reiterate, science has become your sacred cow and so you defend everything related to it even if that thing has become detrimetal to science itself. He never said he had a problem with the method nor does he wants to oppose it.

Talk about conflating the institutions and people for the idea. They are not beyond criticism.

I am dissapinted tbh.. but thats ok, people are always dissapointing. I don't understand how you can misunderstand such a simple concept.

Science is not a religion, however people have begun to treat it as such. That is a mistake.

e_e feels like the retards on redit pretending to have three digit IQs again...

 

[Rebis]

Rupert Sheldrake is a crank. Finding real problems with Big Science doesn't change the fact that his new age woo is bullshit.

Its irrelevant really, he still has to submit his ideas to the scientific method. If its bullshit its bullshit and he can come up with new ideas to test.

His point is clear to me at least. Fuck dogma.

"He is a scientist"
"He wants to set science free"
"Science is dogmatic"
"That is how science works"

e_e he never says science is dogmatic. You misunderstood.

Again I reiterate, science has become your sacred cow and so you defend everything related to it even if that thing has become detrimetal to science itself. He never said he had a problem with the method or that science itself is dogmatic.

Talk about conflating the institutions and people for the idea.

I am dissapinted tbh.. but thats ok, people are always dissapointing.

Science isn't a sacred cow if it's the only way I can determine knowledge.If you can suggest a means to deduce the world that isn't based on observation and deduction, by all means, illuminate others. So I'm delusional by using science as a sacred cow and everyone else that has the ability to stipulate "You're uncertain" has credence? Rightt, maybe I'll join the woke-bias. Maths isn't logically complete, Science is based on maths, Observations aren't true. What will I do?

I think it's disappointing this is called the science delusion. Obviously he's being antagonistic in nature and lending a rhythmic parallel to the god delusion.

If I can see only one cow in the field I will milk it, if Rupert tells me there's another cow simply because you can take the contrapositive of any statement, and I cannot see this cow then why should I reasonably give it any thought? Skepticism might do something, observations that infer a set of probabilities have a probablistic chance, at the very least.

It's not that I haven't considered science to be wrong, whatever the fuck that means given the subsections within it, It's just there is no yield here. At all, and the way we're interpreting the word science is akin to a god as if its a conflated uniform mass.

It has always been the case we are limited, I don't see how to change that to become infallible. Given that's the premise of all observations, it is not something unique to science, or any other field: it is the human condition. Living within limitations is necessary.

 

[Kormak]

Science isn't a sacred cow if it's the only way I can determine knowledge.If you can suggest a means to deduce the world that isn't based on observation and deduction, by all means, illuminate others. So I'm delusional by using science as a sacred cow and everyone else that has the ability to stipulate "You're uncertain" has credence? Rightt, maybe I'll join the woke-bias. Maths isn't logically complete, Science is based on maths, Observations aren't true. What will I do?

I think it's disappointing this is called the science delusion. Obviously he's being antagonistic in nature and lending a rhythmic parallel to the god delusion.

If I can see only one cow in the field I will milk it, if Rupert tells me there's another cow simply because you can take the contrapositive of any statement, and I cannot see this cow then why should I reasonably give it any thought? Skepticism might do something, observations that infer a set of probabilities have a probablistic chance, at the very least.

I give up. This is reddit level retardation. Idk how he or I can be any clearer than this.

^^ scientific method gud yes?
Scinece gr8 for ape man.
Ape man start worship science cus it so gr8.
Ape men build institutions and other ape men think rigid thoughts, scoff at and not consider ideas even if potential there. Rigid thoughts dogmatic ape men make doing science hard again like in old times. It not fault of science, it fault of ape men.

 

[Kormak]

@Cognisant I don't think we are at a point in time where we can say that we have the answers, BUT I do think we will eventually get there if given the chance. Eventually you will have your victory over religion via the gradual aquisition of knowlege. I'm certain of that.

In the meantime ppl cope with the situation through needing to have faith in something. Its just how things are imo.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

Rupert Sheldrake is a crank. Finding real problems with Big Science doesn't change the fact that his new age woo is bullshit.

Its irrelevant really, he still has to submit his ideas to the scientific method. If its bullshit its bullshit and he can come up with new ideas to test.

His point is clear to me at least. Fuck dogma.

Some science claims are more controversial than others. For instance, race and intelligence is one of the more controversial ones. But how is dogma in the science of how starfish feed? Or plant photosynthesis?

It's more productive to discuss the validity of something more specific than to make sweeping generalized statements that it's all dogma.

What specifically are people believing dogmatically that they shouldn't and why?

 

[Rebis]

^^ scientific method gud yes?
Scinece gr8 for ape man.
Ape man start worship science cus it so gr8.
Ape men build institutions and other ape men think rigid thoughts, scoff at and not consider ideas even if potential there. Rigid thoughts dogmatic ape men make doing science hard again like in old times. It not fault of science, it fault of ape men.

What potential is there? Does an idea naturally have potential because someone conceived it? Give an example.

 

[Kormak]

Some science claims are more controversial than others. For instance, race and intelligence is one of the more controversial ones. But how is dogma in the science of how starfish feed? Or plant photosynthesis?

It's more productive to discuss the validity of something more specific than to make sweeping generalized statements that it's all dogma.

What specifically are people believing dogmatically that they shouldn't and why?

Science is not the problem here, its the institutions and people. You won't be receiving funding for doing work that may offend the sensibilities of people / society or work that calls into question certain things that we have come to rely on as a crutch, but can't actually prove through the scientific method aka there is no evidence for it, but ppl still beleave it to be true. Examples given: dark energy and dark matter. This limits research and we may miss opportunities for discovery.

I say follow the data, use the method. Figure it out. If it offends people so what?

Old man Rupert here still has to follow the scientific method.

 

[scorpiomover]

The summary of the video:

This is easily demonstrated by Newton v Einstein.

The data that Newton and Kepler worked with, the precise measurements of Tycho Brahe, were still not exactly matching Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein's theory is much closer, by billions of times.

Even so, 99% of the time, Newton's theory is more than accurate enough for our needs. So most of the time, we still use Newton.

We only use Einstein's field equation in those cases where we need things to be millions of times more accurate, such as in sending signals to satellites in outer space where we need the time-codes to be accurate to a millisecond.

So you can think of Einstein's theory as a very small error correction to Newton's theory, as if scientists already understood the fundamental principles of the nature of reality, and were just filling in a few details.

But in order for einstein's theory to hold, we had to throw out Euclidean space. We had to totally change our understanding of space. We also had to totally change our understanding of time as well.

So by replacing Newton's theory with Einstein's, scientists had to completely change our understanding of the first principles of the nature of reality, such as the shortest distance between 2 points no longer being a straight line.

This is an example of how scientific understandings of the nature of reality were completely revamped in light of new evidence, and even just in light of new theories.

There are many others.

Therefore, every time science updates a theory, it updates its understanding of the fundamental nature of reality.

So we can only be tentative about the current scientific understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, even the theories that all scientists agree with.

E.G. electricity might not exist. We're pretty sure that it does, because its been around for a few hundred years and not been contradicted by new evidence. But things change all the time, and one day, we might come across new evidence that makes us re-think the whole idea of electricity.

Considering how electrons also exhibit wave-like properties and particle-like properties, and thus many now consider electrons as a field, we may already have the evidence.

It may even be that we haven't yet changed our understanding of electricity in light of the new evidence, even though we already have the new evidence.

 

[Kormak]

When you know stuff and proceed with mental gymnastics to make your religion workable in light of new information its called sophism... in other words manufacturing ignorance.

Science doesn't have the answers yet. Scientific theories keep being changed in light of new evidence and new understandings (like Relativity), i.e. in light of new information, not just by filling in the details, but even by redefining the nature of reality in principle. The theories themselves are completely changed in light of new information.

This requires incredible mental gymnastics, such as that space is curved(!), that things behave as waves and as particles, that 2 particles that are millions of miles apart can be entangled, and much, much more.

So even according to Rupert Sheldrake, when you know stuff and proceed with mental gymnastics to make your theories of physical reality workable in light of new information, its called science...

He still has to submit his ideas to the scientific method and get results. If he can't prove his ideas, they are probably wrong and he needs to rethink them. Religions already have faith that their dogma is true, so they reformulate and incorporate new information to make it seem like its plausible e_e but they can't test and get empirical results... its just sophism, attempts at justifying something they have faith in.

At this point in time science does not understand the nature of reality in principle, but eventually it will. We may yet be surprised, who knows. At this point it is not something we can use to give solace to ppl seeking meaning.

Religion relies on faith & belief for a reason.
Science relies on results and data.
Huge difference.

Despite this I can understand that people seek some kind of meaning, connection, solace from existential terror, nihilism and so on. Its why they chose to have failth.

There are many others.

If history is true, there will be many others to come.

 

[scorpiomover]

When you know stuff and proceed with mental gymnastics to make your religion workable in light of new information its called sophism... in other words manufacturing ignorance.

Science doesn't have the answers yet. Scientific theories keep being changed in light of new evidence and new understandings (like Relativity), i.e. in light of new information, not just by filling in the details, but even by redefining the nature of reality in principle. The theories themselves are completely changed in light of new information.

This requires incredible mental gymnastics, such as that space is curved(!), that things behave as waves and as particles, that 2 particles that are millions of miles apart can be entangled, and much, much more.

So even according to Rupert Sheldrake, when you know stuff and proceed with mental gymnastics to make your theories of physical reality workable in light of new information, its called science...

He still has to submit his ideas to the scientific method and get results. If he can't prove his ideas, they are probably wrong and he needs to rethink them.

If you thought you had sex with your girlfriend on several nights, if you haven't submitted your ideas to the scientific method and got results, like having scientifically-valid witnesses and videos on every occasion, they are probably wrong and you need to re-think them. Even if you had a video, it could have been photoshopped. Therefore, you need others who are completely impartial and objective to video them. Therefore, according to you, Rupert Sheldrake would be saying that unless you paid someone to be there and capture it on video, you are probably wrong about having sex with your girlfriend.

I seriously doubt that Rupert Sheldrake is claiming that.

He's simply claiming that just as scientists are still learning the details, they are also still learning their principles and theories as well. So the whole of science is still tentative and uncertain, not just the details, but the general theories as well, and all the laws and formulas.

In the same way, many people right now would disagree with religions, because it is supposed to contradict science.

Many religious people would say that religions only conflict with science on the details, where scientists are uncertain anyway, but the scientific understanding of the nature of reality is consistent with their religion.

Some people would claim that that's not a valid response, because they believe that there are several cases where it seems to be that the general principles are in conflict with many religions, including Abrahamic religions.

However, Sheldrake is pointing out that even those general principles are in serious question, and so there's nothing that we can say for certain about reality that could be definitely considered to be in conflict with religions.

Religions already have faith that their dogma is true, so they reformulate and incorporate new information to make it seem like its plausible e_e but they can't test and get empirical results... its just sophism, attempts at justifying something they have faith in.

Most religions don't work backwards like science does. They work on the premise of some historical events occurring, and work forwards. So there's no need to test and get empirical results.

It's like if you arguing that the American Civil War never happened.

Religions incorporate new information, the same way that people do when it comes to the American Civil War of the 1860s, such as the Civil Right Acts of the 1960s.

At this point in time science does not understand the nature of reality in principle, but eventually it will. We may yet be surprised, who knows.

What religious people expect, is that when scientists get there, their understanding of the nature of reality will mirror their religious beliefs, and then science will validate their religion.

At this point it is not something we can use to give solace to ppl seeking meaning.

I don't think it ever can be. The goal of science is to reach a better understanding of reality. It isn't about considerations of how to console people in grief and mourning.

Religion relies on faith & belief for a reason.
Science relies on results and data.
Huge difference.

You're thinking of Xianity. Xianity started out being very much anti-capitalist and ascetic. It then morphed into offering people solace and emotional support when the Romans took it over.

Despite this I can understand that people seek some kind of meaning, connection, solace from existential terror, nihilism and so on. Its why they chose to have failth.

I get that. I respect your view, as it shows a modicum of respect for other human beings.

But some people I met had a religion, and left their religion for another one. They weren't looking for meaning or connection, or escape from existential terror nihilism and so on, from a religion, because they already had a religion.

Some people I met, grew up up atheist and happy, content and secure in themselves. They weren't looking for meaning or connection, or escape from existential terror nihilism and so on, because they were happy, content and secure in themselves.

I met lots of people like that, of both types.

Your theory only really works for some people, namely, those people who openly say that the only reason they believe in their religion, is because it makes them feel good.

I don't deny that such people exist.

But there are lots of other people, where we have clear evidence that they didn't have those motives, and still chose to be part of a religion.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Heated discussion, want to get into, no energy right now, will apply my broken record. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!173728 who's paying the researchers salary so they can eat???

Answer this question before reading on. Where is science and it's principles (math-~→stats) applied the most in the mordern day??


Data science. Data "is the oil of the information age." The only people that are pushing the envelope are universities or certain openly funded organizations like Cern. Yeah cool you took a picture of a black hole, neat, I have a small army of scientist and engineers working to manipulate the general population and maximizing profits, and boi there is a lot of profits, so much so that starting salaries are 60,000 USD. Capitalism strikes again, people want results that puts them ahead of others in general though, we are the ones that invented it after all.

 

[Cognisant]

To answer your question, yes I would absolutely tell them the truth and would wish for people to show the same kind of honesty towards me.

Then you agree that truth is more important than comfort?

Being aware of the truth opens up possibilities for further action. It becomes a point in time and space which achors these possibilities.

Indeed diseases are cured when research is performed to develop a cure and that research can only occur when people believe that finding a cure is possible, otherwise why would you waste your time? This is something I find quite distressing about religion, that by putting the focus on the afterlife it makes dying acceptable, why bother trying to find a cure for cancer when death is an acceptable outcome?

e_e I would still be dying of said cancer tho.

And how is wilful ignorance any different in that regard? In my example I stipulated that the cancer was terminal but what if it wasn’t, what if with the right treatment there’s a chance of survival, how furious would you be if someone denied you that chance on the presumption that you’ll have an afterlife so therefore it’s okay to lie to you?

The thing is telling ppl they have “cancer” is still not the cure itself. We don’t actually know what is going on, we know some things which point towards certain possibilities, but these are still just theories.

So? Are you not holding modern medicine to an impossible standard by pointing out that modern medicine can’t cure absolutely everything? As compared to what, religion? What diseases has religion eradicated? What surgical techniques has religion developed? What technologies were given to us by god? Indeed all we have are theories, tested and validated by extensive experimentation but still theories none the less, they may not be perfect but their certainly better than dogma based on stories from bigoted & chauvinistic old men getting high in cave thousands of years ago.

Essentially what this does is strip people from an evolved coping mechanism and leaves them with nothing but more questions and uncertainty in an already terrifying & temporary situation. Its not going to go down well with the 80%, you can’t just strip them of their psychological defence against existential terror and hope they accept it.

Again don’t you agree that truth is more important than comfort?

The only difference here is that the lie seems less heinous because we’re talking about demographics rather than individuals, “a million is a statistic” so to speak, but that is a fallacy and you know it. It is no less heinous to withhold the truth from the 80% than an individual just as you know you wouldn’t want the truth withheld from you.

Courage is not the absence of fear and delusion doesn’t defend anyone from anything, instead you would shackle their minds ostensibly for their own protection but in truth all you’re doing is crippling them so that they’re made dependent upon you.

The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in.

What an utterly worthless statement, absolutely everyone who isn’t a stark raving lunatic believes they have some understanding of reality even though they don’t know everything, then there’s those lunatics who think they do know everything because they’re solipsists and/or metaphysical nihilists. If you read through his bullshit what he’s really saying (while leaving himself plenty of room to backtrack because he knows he’s full of shit) is that science cannot account for absolutely everything, therefore science is not infallible, therefore science is fallible, therefore he can assert whatever bullshit he wants and nobody can call him out on it. Which is nonsense because if you have to resort to such epistemological nihilism to assert something it is because all available evidence contradicts you.

He’s an apologist, a sophist, a quack.

^^; I guess thats where we differ, I question everything and everyone, including myself. I always leave the door open for alternative possibilities. Its probably why I wasn’t religious from the start and couln’t become one even when I tried. The fact that we don’t actually know much & there is a lot left to discover is exciting to me. Most people can’t seem to deal with this tho, faith in something or someone is the norm.

Mmhmm, you spread the teachings of a sophist but you don’t practice sophistry yourself? I don’t believe you, I’m sure there’s something you believe in that you’re keeping to yourself because you know if you share it in front of the wrong crowed it won’t be well received.

I recommend reading his book along with The God Delusion (I assume you already read the latter)

I received it as a gift and got bored of it after the first few pages, not much point reading a book I could have written myself, indeed if you went through my entire posting history I probably have paraphrased it in its entirety already.

e_e its just an hour of him talking, jezz you sound like my brother, low attention span:

In my defence I’m having a discussion with you, not him, by all means use him as a reference or post other videos if they serve to illustrate your point but don’t just dump loads of material on me and expect me to study it, it’s lazy and distributing someone else’s content without your own commentary implies that you’re letting them think for you.

Science is a religion.

It’s really not.

Cancer is a product of disease, and disease is a product of meta instability, which both science and religion stabilize. So in a sense, it is a cure in itself.

Don’t be ridiculous! Clearly it’s an imbalance of the humours.

Have you tested the peer review process? How many times, approximately? How did you test it? What were your experiments and observations and what were your results? What were your conclusions as a result of your experiments?

These are the questions we should be asking of peer review. Till then, it’s got as much scientific proof as “pin the tail on the donkey”.

Peer review is essentially skepticism so you’re saying we should be sceptical of skepticism itself?

This isn’t even epistemological skepticism, this is just stupid, you can’t be sceptical of skepticism because that itself is skepticism so you’re trying to find a flaw with skepticism using the same skepticism you proclaim to be flawed! If you find a flaw in skepticism with skepticism all you’ve achieved is the redefinition of skepticism to exclude that flaw thus no matter how hard you try or even how successful your efforts are you will never prove that skepticism itself is inherently flawed.

I’ll make it simple, dogma of any kind in authoritarian institutions, be that religious or otherwise limits the exploration of possibilities and consequently potential discoveries through the scientific method elude our grasp. That is what he is saying. He trying to set science free.

But science isn’t an authoritarian institution, it isn’t any kind of institution, you could describe the scientific community as an amalgamation of institutions around the world and even that isn’t totally accurate, anyone anywhere can do science even individuals testing personal theories in their own backyards are doing science. If there’s something you want to investigate you can just investigate it, there’s nothing but the feasibility of you experiments stopping you and if you can’t get funding to do your experiments that’s not the scientific community conspiring against you that’s just economics.

Instead of trying to set science free from some oppressive authority it sounds to me like he’s trying to expand the definition of science to include things that aren’t scientific, to give credence to theories that lack sufficient evidence to be credible, that essentially he’s charlatan who has adopted the guise of a scientist.

We don’t understand the nature of reality in principle at this point. A lot of what we think we know might change or be reinforced with new discoveries, it has in the past. That is how science works.

Yes and everything we think we know is supported by the evidence we have available, by all means speculate but if you want to asset something you better seek evidence to support it, that’s how science works, if you want to assert something like say “telepathy is possible” then stop talking about it and start researching, nobody’s stopping you.

When “science” has become your sacred cow, you should start asking yourself why.

Clearly I don’t know what you’re talking about, please provide an example, ideally several.

His point is clear to me at least. Fuck dogma.

What dogma?

Still so much to catch up on... v.v

 

[Kormak]

Then you agree that truth is more important than comfort?

Obviously.

And how is wilful ignorance any different in that regard? In my example I stipulated that the cancer was terminal but what if it wasn’t, what if with the right treatment there’s a chance of survival, how furious would you be if someone denied you that chance on the presumption that you’ll have an afterlife so therefore it’s okay to lie to you?

As I said, I'm for the truth.

So? Are you not holding modern medicine to an impossible standard by pointing out that modern medicine can’t cure absolutely everything? As compared to what, religion? What diseases has religion eradicated? What surgical techniques has religion developed? What technologies were given to us by god? Indeed all we have are theories, tested and validated by extensive experimentation but still theories none the less, they may not be perfect but their certainly better than dogma based on stories from bigoted & chauvinistic old men getting high in cave thousands of years ago.

I agree with this yes, this was exactly my point.

Again don’t you agree that truth is more important than comfort?

The only difference here is that the lie seems less heinous because we’re talking about demographics rather than individuals, “a million is a statistic” so to speak, but that is a fallacy and you know it. It is no less heinous to withhold the truth from the 80% than an individual just as you know you wouldn’t want the truth withheld from you.

Courage is not the absence of fear and delusion doesn’t defend anyone from anything, instead you would shackle their minds ostensibly for their own protection but in truth all you’re doing is crippling them so that they’re made dependent upon you.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I'm merely pointing out that the horse will most likely not drink.

Mmhmm, you spread the teachings of a sophist but you don’t practice sophistry yourself? I don’t believe you, I’m sure there’s something you believe in that you’re keeping to yourself because you know if you share it in front of the wrong crowed it won’t be well received.

Please keep your ad hominems to yourself. As rupert stated he has to submit his theories to the scientific method. Rebis above is making strawmen arguments, let us not engage in these as well. I have been honest the whole time, if you chose to believe otherwise that is not something I can change. The one subconscious thing I can think of is that I'm aware of the atrocities committed towards the religious where I live during communism, where we were under forced atheism.

In my defence I’m having a discussion with you, not him, by all means use him as a reference or post other videos if they serve to illustrate your point but don’t just dump loads of material on me and expect me to study it, it’s lazy and distributing someone else’s content without your own commentary implies that you’re letting them think for you.

I brought him up to reinforce my argument that dogma religious or otherwise is detrimental & should be avoided. Its not me who is being lazy here.

But science isn’t an authoritarian institution, it isn’t any kind of institution, you could describe the scientific community as an amalgamation of institutions around the world and even that isn’t totally accurate, anyone anywhere can do science even individuals testing personal theories in their own backyards are doing science. If there’s something you want to investigate you can just investigate it, there’s nothing but the feasibility of you experiments stopping you and if you can’t get funding to do your experiments that’s not the scientific community conspiring against you that’s just economics.

Instead of trying to set science free from some oppressive authority it sounds to me like he’s trying to expand the definition of science to include things that aren’t scientific, to give credence to theories that lack sufficient evidence to be credible, that essentially he’s charlatan who has adopted the guise of a scientist.

More ad hominem & strawmen arguments. Stop trying to interpret.

Yes and everything we think we know is supported by the evidence we have available, by all means speculate but if you want to asset something you better seek evidence to support it, that’s how science works, if you want to assert something like say “telepathy is possible” then stop talking about it and start researching, nobody’s stopping you.

I guess thats why they strip Nobel peace prize winners of their honors & socially shame them these days for finding the "wrong" data. Modern age same old problem.

I received it as a gift and got bored of it after the first few pages, not much point reading a book I could have written myself, indeed if you went through my entire posting history I probably have paraphrased it in its entirety already.

Again you are lazy. To me, your crusade seems more like a personal vendetta driven by emotion, rather than curiosity and interest in the truth.

Clearly I don’t know what you’re talking about, please provide an example, ideally several.

This entire thread is a good example. Strawmen and attacks on character over a perceived (but in truth non-existent) threat to the sacred cow.

Provocative titles are gr8

 

[Kormak]

If you thought you had sex with your girlfriend on several nights, if you haven't submitted your ideas to the scientific method and got results, like having scientifically-valid witnesses and videos on every occasion, they are probably wrong and you need to re-think them. Even if you had a video, it could have been photoshopped. Therefore, you need others who are completely impartial and objective to video them. Therefore, according to you, Rupert Sheldrake would be saying that unless you paid someone to be there and capture it on video, you are probably wrong about having sex with your girlfriend.

XD oh man, bad example, lmao plz stop.
You can't prove God exists, therefore faith aka strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. <== the whole point of religion.

I seriously doubt that Rupert Sheldrake is claiming that.

He's simply claiming that just as scientists are still learning the details, they are also still learning their principles and theories as well. So the whole of science is still tentative and uncertain, not just the details, but the general theories as well, and all the laws and formulas.

In the same way, many people right now would disagree with religions, because it is supposed to contradict science.

Many religious people would say that religions only conflict with science on the details, where scientists are uncertain anyway, but the scientific understanding of the nature of reality is consistent with their religion.

Some people would claim that that's not a valid response, because they believe that there are several cases where it seems to be that the general principles are in conflict with many religions, including Abrahamic religions.

Look, agnostic atheists merely point out that there is no concrete proof or knowledge of God and they refuse to have faith. They don't try to prove there is no God, that assertion is made by the theists, they are supposed to give proof <== or so atheists say. e_e theists, however, do not need to prove God exists... because the assertion is having faith not concrete knowledge.

Theists say that they have faith despite that, not knowledge. These are completely different things, to me, it seems like this "fight" is over who has the authority, rather than what we can know.

Kinda getting tired of both sides straw-manning each-other.

However, Sheldrake is pointing out that even those general principles are in serious question, and so there's nothing that we can say for certain about reality that could be definitely considered to be in conflict with religions.

Yes, I agree. I think this is the problem of militant atheists, not mine. I'm perfectly fine with accepting the reality of the situation.

What religious people expect, is that when scientists get there, their understanding of the nature of reality will mirror their religious beliefs, and then science will validate their religion.

It depends on what we find, yeah.

I don't think it ever can be. The goal of science is to reach a better understanding of reality. It isn't about considerations of how to console people in grief and mourning.

Bingo. I agree.

You're thinking of Xianity. Xianity started out being very much anti-capitalist and ascetic. It then morphed into offering people solace and emotional support when the Romans took it over.

I will look into this.

I get that. I respect your view, as it shows a modicum of respect for other human beings.

But some people I met had a religion, and left their religion for another one. They weren't looking for meaning or connection, or escape from existential terror nihilism and so on, from a religion, because they already had a religion.

Some people I met, grew up up atheist and happy, content and secure in themselves. They weren't looking for meaning or connection, or escape from existential terror nihilism and so on, because they were happy, content and secure in themselves.

I met lots of people like that, of both types.

Your theory only really works for some people, namely, those people who openly say that the only reason they believe in their religion, is because it makes them feel good.

I don't deny that such people exist.

But there are lots of other people, where we have clear evidence that they didn't have those motives, and still chose to be part of a religion.

Hmm, do we have any studies on this?
It would be interesting to see why people are religious or not.
I could never get into any type of religion either. I did struggle with nihilism early on tho. I can only assume that its because I'm type 6 and doubt is my norm: https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-6 faith is a very scarece resource in my mind.

For the record, I have criticism for Abrahamic religions, mainly the dogma and authoritarianism, but otherwise, I'm not really bothered by theists unlike Cognisant & I am aware of how bad militant atheism got under communism as well, so from my part there is no real push for atheism in order to dethrone religion.

 

[Black Rose]

Science kicks ass. Science books are the best.
I've been doing science since I was 8 years old. I love it.

 

[Kormak]

Science kicks ass. Science books are the best.
I've been doing science since I was 8 years old. I love it.

Yeah!

 

[Cognisant]

returns to standby mode

Alright you trolled me good but you're still on my woodar.

 

[scorpiomover]

Have you tested the peer review process? How many times, approximately? How did you test it? What were your experiments and observations and what were your results? What were your conclusions as a result of your experiments?

These are the questions we should be asking of peer review. Till then, it’s got as much scientific proof as “pin the tail on the donkey”.

Peer review is essentially skepticism so you’re saying we should be sceptical of skepticism itself?

Scepticism just means that I don't assume you are right just because some humans say so, and want to check it out for myself. I'd read what you wrote, and analyse it for myself. I might even repeat your experiments for myself.

Peer review means I ask the guys who you went to school with, if you're right, and take their word for it. No brains required.

 

[scorpiomover]

You can't prove God exists,

I can't? Wow. For me to claim that the square root of 2 can't be a rational number, I'd need a proof of that.

But somehow, you think you can just make a statement that theism cannot be proved, and expect that the world should just believe you like you are an omniscient deity?

If you were right, you'd be a deity, and thent that would prove that deities exist.

Come one, dude. Following reason, logic and science, means not making claims without a proof.

therefore faith aka strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. <== the whole point of religion.

It sounds like you are working with the view that faith and belief are words that, for the last 1,000 years of English history, meant "things that have zero basis in reason or logic or evidence whatsoever".

When I was growing up, I would hear people say things like "I have faith that you will pass your test, because you studied hard for your test" and "I believe that the Earth goes around the Sun".

For the last 1,000 years, these words meant "things that were not absolutely certain, but had a high confidence interval of being true", or for short, "things that you were confident about".

But a lot of people much younger than me, and who have not read much of English history or English language, seem to be have absolute certainty that the words "faith" and "belief" mean something completely different, concepts that used to be referred to as "BLIND faith" and "BLIND belief".

What is even more bizarre, is that those people seem to not even be aware that of the idea that you can be not absolutely certain of something, and still think that it's likely to be true.

It's like Newspeak has come to life, almost as those when George Orwell was writing Nineteen Eighty-Four, he was writing it as a criticism of Western governments.

Look, agnostic atheists

When I was a kid, "atheist" just meant "someone who didn't believe in G-d". "Agnostic" meant "someone on the fence, someone who wasn't convinced of theism or atheism".

More Newspeak?

Or just the evolution of language to remove concepts that humans should not think about?

Look, agnostic atheists merely point out that there is no concrete proof or knowledge of God and they refuse to have faith. They don't try to prove there is no God, that assertion is made by the theists, they are supposed to give proof <== or so atheists say.

When I was learning to drive, my driving instructor shouted at me, that there are no defaults in driving.

You can't assume that just because you don't see a car, that a car is not there, or you'll drive ahead and get hit by a car that you didn't see coming.

Saved my life.

If you can NOT actually see that a car is NOT there, you can't assume that a car isn't there. It remains in a state of what mathematicians call "indeterminacy" and physicists call "quantum superposition", i.e. that it might be there, or it might not.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think that logic should only apply to cars, and not everything else as well.

Is it reasonable to use reason and logic to figure out the world?

Or should we just be taking the words of government-paid scientists as if they were the words of infallible priests?

e_e theists, however, do not need to prove God exists... because the assertion is having faith not concrete knowledge.

Theists say that they have faith despite that, not knowledge. These are completely different things, to me, it seems like this "fight" is over who has the authority, rather than what we can know.

Kinda getting tired of both sides straw-manning each-other.

Because it's logically impossible for theists to have any rational basis for their views?

Kinda sounds like saying that the only rational view is atheism, if you ask me.

The thought police have struck again.

Yes, I agree. I think this is the problem of militant atheists, not mine. I'm perfectly fine with accepting the reality of the situation.

All that I wrote above, is simply about what seems to be happening for young people, is that their language and books seem to be being censored and re-written to convince them to not even consider theism as anything but something akin to the way they think about a Coca-cola sponsored Santa Claus.

It's like their brains have been hijacked by politicians and corporate executives to vote emotionally, and to purchase products purely because product ads give them feel-good associations with those products.

I get that. I respect your view, as it shows a modicum of respect for other human beings.

But some people I met had a religion, and left their religion for another one. They weren't looking for meaning or connection, or escape from existential terror nihilism and so on, from a religion, because they already had a religion.

Some people I met, grew up up atheist and happy, content and secure in themselves. They weren't looking for meaning or connection, or escape from existential terror nihilism and so on, because they were happy, content and secure in themselves.

I met lots of people like that, of both types.

Your theory only really works for some people, namely, those people who openly say that the only reason they believe in their religion, is because it makes them feel good.

I don't deny that such people exist.

But there are lots of other people, where we have clear evidence that they didn't have those motives, and still chose to be part of a religion.

Hmm, do we have any studies on this?

Not that I know of.

But I wouldn't trust scientific studies completely anway.

Dr David Nutt, the government's scientific advisor on drugs, said that Class A drugs like Ecstasy had no more deaths than horse-riding, which is legal. The government promptly sacked him and said he didn't know what he was talking about.

Dr David Kelly was going to say on national TV that the government knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Then he ended up dead.

So I try to do my own experiments, where possible.

It would be interesting to see why people are religious or not.

Yes, it would. Different people have different motives.

I could never get into any type of religion either. I did struggle with nihilism early on tho. I can only assume that its because I'm type 6 and doubt is my norm: https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-6 faith is a very scarece resource in my mind.

Odd. I typed as 6w5.

I found it very worrying, as I read that Type 6s are supposed to be like SJs, who are supposed to love following authority.

But I am so untrusting, that when I was 10, and my teacher said that everyone knows how to prove G-d, I refused to ask anyone for a proof, because I was too worried that they might give me a false proof.

So I spent 4 years trying to prove if there was a god or not. Didn't tell anyone what I was doing during that time, in case they tried to influence me.

For the record, I have criticism for Abrahamic religions, mainly the dogma and authoritarianism, but otherwise, I'm not really bothered by theists unlike Cognisant & I am aware of how bad militant atheism got under communism as well, so from my part there is no real push for atheism in order to dethrone religion.

OK.

FYI, there's a massive amount of room in religions when it comes to dogma and authoritarianism, both between denominations, and even in denominations themselves.

There's something close to 10,000 different denominations of Xianity. Some of them, like African Xianity, do things that are central to their religious practices, that in others, like Anglicanism, would be considered idolatry and a death sentence.

Then there are Quakers, who say that you can believe whatever you want, as long as you believe in G-d. They're so undogmatic that their prayer sessions are basically people just standing saying nothing, so that everyone can pray whatever they believe to whoever they believe, without anyone being the wiser.

There are Catholics who believe they have to stick to the official interpretation of the Bible, and then there are protestants who believe that you can interpret the Bible any way you want. There was even a Bishop who said that someone can be an atheist AND a Good Xian.

They really differ that much.

Meanwhile, there is only ONE scientific community for the entire world.

There is also such a thing as "scientific consensus", the general view of that community. Anyone who disagrees with scientific consensus is automatically labelled a lunatic.

 

[Minuend]

Obviously the ideal of scientific thought would be the superior way to garner knowledge, and in a lot of cases it does give us a lot of insight. As long as it's not influenced by money, individuals seeking status and recognition etc, it's pretty good yo. We just have a tiny problem of corruption, politics and people seeking gains before truth. I guess some fields are more impacted by this than others. Or is that a naive thought? It wouldn't surprise me if there's also a lot of teenage emotional drama in physics.

Some truths are obviously more vulnerable than others.

 

[Kormak]

I can't? Wow. For me to claim that the square root of 2 can't be a rational number, I'd need a proof of that.

But somehow, you think you can just make a statement that theism cannot be proved, and expect that the world should just believe you like you are an omniscient deity?

If you were right, you'd be a deity, and thent that would prove that deities exist.

Come one, dude. Following reason, logic and science, means not making claims without a proof.

If you assert knowlege of God you must present concrete irrefutable proof. Most theists stop at faith.

It sounds like you are working with the view that faith and belief are words that, for the last 1,000 years of English history, meant "things that have zero basis in reason or logic or evidence whatsoever".

When I was growing up, I would hear people say things like "I have faith that you will pass your test, because you studied hard for your test" and "I believe that the Earth goes around the Sun".

For the last 1,000 years, these words meant "things that were not absolutely certain, but had a high confidence interval of being true", or for short, "things that you were confident about".

But a lot of people much younger than me, and who have not read much of English history or English language, seem to be have absolute certainty that the words "faith" and "belief" mean something completely different, concepts that used to be referred to as "BLIND faith" and "BLIND belief".

What is even more bizarre, is that those people seem to not even be aware that of the idea that you can be not absolutely certain of something, and still think that it's likely to be true.

It's like Newspeak has come to life, almost as those when George Orwell was writing Nineteen Eighty-Four, he was writing it as a criticism of Western governments.

It just measn you trust that you are correct despite no coclusive evidence, otherwise it would be knowlege and certitude.

1984 is here, or have you missed it? Say the wrong thing somewhere where it counts, become a loud enough threat and you'll get crushed like an ant or worse yet they will ghost you and you fade into oblivion. Memory holed.

When I was a kid, "atheist" just meant "someone who didn't believe in G-d". "Agnostic" meant "someone on the fence, someone who wasn't convinced of theism or atheism".

More Newspeak?

Or just the evolution of language to remove concepts that humans should not think about?

Agnostic means lack of knowlege, to which atheists admit. There is no evidence for God, therfor I don't beleave it exists. I don't actually know for sure that there is no god nor do I assert that, therfor agnostic atheist.

I have faith in myself, the one thing I know and can control in life. I have grown to see it as enough.

When I was learning to drive, my driving instructor shouted at me, that there are no defaults in driving.

You can't assume that just because you don't see a car, that a car is not there, or you'll drive ahead and get hit by a car that you didn't see coming.

Saved my life.

If you can NOT actually see that a car is NOT there, you can't assume that a car isn't there. It remains in a state of what mathematicians call "indeterminacy" and physicists call "quantum superposition", i.e. that it might be there, or it might not.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think that logic should only apply to cars, and not everything else as well.

Is it reasonable to use reason and logic to figure out the world?

Or should we just be taking the words of government-paid scientists as if they were the words of infallible priests?

Again atheists don't claim to know with certitude that there is no God, see above.
I can keep an open mind and allow for the possibility, but that doesen't mean I will have faith, when everything I know about reality contradicts the religious pov.
One should always think for himself, yes. In an ideal world there would be no other agendas on the table, but in this one there are and they definetly mudy the waters.

Because it's logically impossible for theists to have any rational basis for their views?

Kinda sounds like saying that the only rational view is atheism, if you ask me.

The thought police have struck again.

Did they? The way I see it each side is free to think what they like as long as concrete evidence for or against isn't found. Its merely about fith. You either chose to make a leap of faith or not. I'm a very cautious guy by nature.

All that I wrote above, is simply about what seems to be happening for young people, is that their language and books seem to be being censored and re-written to convince them to not even consider theism as anything but something akin to the way they think about a Coca-cola sponsored Santa Claus.

It's like their brains have been hijacked by politicians and corporate executives to vote emotionally, and to purchase products purely because product ads give them feel-good associations with those products.

This is true for many things, not just religion related. I agree.

Not that I know of.

But I wouldn't trust scientific studies completely anway.

Dr David Nutt, the government's scientific advisor on drugs, said that Class A drugs like Ecstasy had no more deaths than horse-riding, which is legal. The government promptly sacked him and said he didn't know what he was talking about.

Dr David Kelly was going to say on national TV that the government knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Then he ended up dead.

So I try to do my own experiments, where possible.

:P they also say milk makes your bones strong to prop up the dairy industry and more.
Ofc there were no WMDs, that was a convenient excuse, a means to an end.
XD didn't you know the russinas hijacked the US election as well?
^^; also the Hungarian prime minister is a racist nazi who dares build hospitals in Syra and calls innocent women and children fleeing conflict "fighting age men & economic migrants" .\o/ this is atrocious! We need our diversity and cheap workforce / imported votees to divide and rule! Who else is going to pay my parlimentary useless buerochrat excessive salary and unwittingly vote me into office? Europeans? BAH! they don't reproduce! We made sure of that...

Odd. I typed as 6w5.

I found it very worrying, as I read that Type 6s are supposed to be like SJs, who are supposed to love following authority.

But I am so untrusting, that when I was 10, and my teacher said that everyone knows how to prove G-d, I refused to ask anyone for a proof, because I was too worried that they might give me a false proof.

So I spent 4 years trying to prove if there was a god or not. Didn't tell anyone what I was doing during that time, in case they tried to influence me.

Yeah, sixes are odd, bundles of contradiction they say. I'd stab my God right through the back if I knew for certain it betrayed me and my kin. Loyalty only to certitude, to ppl, entities who deserve it and ideas that make sense.

There is also such a thing as "scientific consensus", the general view of that community. Anyone who disagrees with scientific consensus is automatically labelled a lunatic.

Yeah, its why I made the thread. The rot runs deep.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The science erection