What do you know about aliens?
- Thread starter Nevaeh420
- Start date
- Status
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Science is the only way to discover what is true. I wholeheartedly stand by that statement.
You disagree, so give me one other example of something we've figured out to be true without using science
What you were looking at is not in question
No, you don't. You believe you saw something that you think was a being. The only thing you've presented as evidence is your own personal account. Your adamant refusal to accept this position is another huge red flag that tells me you're only interested in your pseudoscience bullshit, not what is actually true.
That's fine. The problem arises when we tell you the odds of what you claim is happening, how unlikely it is, the distances, the facts, the philosophy, everything.. You refuse to accept any of it, you are convinced you're right and no amount of evidence will sway you. You have accepted the position of a fanatic.
You are what I like to call "new age religious", not confined to any traditional cult, but definitely entrenched in a cult of your own. Regardless, the same ignorance exists and whether you want to accept it or not, what you are doing perpetuates the struggle humanity faces
Because "it really happened", right...
If you are telling the truth, every scientist who has ever lived is wrong. Is that the claim you're making?
Idiot, F A C T S, by DEFINITION, are things you can PROVE. For fucks sake, pick up a dictionary. Have you never been to 5th grade? A FACT is not negotiable. It is a fact that you are a male, it is a fact that the sky is blue, it is a FACT that the Earth revolves around the Sun, your belief means exactly SHIT when put up against the facts. It is in no way shape or form a FACT that you are the son of God, that is preposterous, unsubstantiated bullshit. The ramblings of a crazy person. Can you prove it? "I can prove it to me", no, you fuck, that isn't proving it, prove it TO ME, can you do that? No? Then fuck you, it isn't a fact.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You can't be honest with me if you are being dishonest with yourself
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;BpRgY9GXLO0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpRgY9GXLO0[/video]
bamabudblazer
Member
How do you see a "alien" if its wearing an "invisibility suit"?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Too bad it will be buried under Nevaeh's delusional, repetitive ramblings... I saw a being in an invisibility suit, I watched through my bb gun scope for 2 hours, I can't say for sure it was an alien, but this is how I know aliens have visited because I saw something that was invisible. I know for sure it was a being in an invisibility suit and not my mind playing tricks on me because I am in complete control of my mental faculties, my brain would never lie to me, Oh, BTW, I think I'm Christ....
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Too bad it will be buried under Nevaeh's delusional, repetitive ramblings... I saw a being in an invisibility suit, I watched through my bb gun scope for 2 hours, I can't say for sure it was an alien, but this is how I know aliens have visited because I saw something that was invisible. I know for sure it was a being in an invisibility suit and not my mind playing tricks on me because I am in complete control of my mental faculties, my brain would never lie to me, Oh, BTW, I think I'm Christ....
This post is the equivalent in man bro sciency talk pwnage as a redheaded, pale freckled, thick glassed, emo chick is to sexing
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
You dont think its possible that this viewpoint is blinding you from certain aspects of reality?
You gotta remember that I dont bash science, science is fucking dope, its just not the only way to discover what is true. Experience, learning from experience, and in some cases even practicing what you experience to reproduce the experience for yourself (Im talking about things you dont think are real btw) havent come close to reaching the last step yet. The "fallible mind" and any argument relating to that mental trickery, wishful thinking, or delusion is not convincing to me, especially considering what I've consistently experienced (lets not go through pointless bickering about my experiences again please...). But yeah, me, my group of friends, and according to my uncle whos a university professor, a community of spiritual people and many people around the world have experienced what I have and more, but thats still the vast minority so its subjective, so what? Can truth not come from consistent subjective experiences?
I think it is very closed minded just to stomp your feet and say "No! This is the only way! Look at what this has accomplished? Dont like it? Deal with it!". Hardly an attitude to have considering the title of this sub-forum and the philosophy you guys share that includes the rule of uncertainty which your way of thinking is apparently exempt from...
mudminer
Active Member
NOW THAT SHITS FUCKIN SCARY!!!!! Please stop frightening me Pad. Jebus Christ.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yes! It is entirely possible. But there is nothing I can look at or examine or study or read to confirm that. There's nothing to support the idea that through subjects that exist outside the realm of accepted science, subjects that have no way to test them, can we attain accurate answers about our reality. I asked you to give me one and you answered my question with another question..
So can you provide such an example or not?
(It just occured to me this type of discussion would be much more personal and accepting in person, if, for example it were some kind of student/teacher relationship, or a mentor or something.. over the internet, the full message will never be delivered..)
You do bash science, with every unscientific claim you make.
If science is not the only way to discover what is true, again, provide me with one example of something we've accepted to be true without the use of science
No, that's the problem. Subjective opinion, no matter how many you have, are all useless when it comes to science. Your opinion on how hot it might be will always be different than mine, that's subjective. Too hot to me is just right for you, just right for you is too cold for the other guy, too cold for him is freezing for another woman.. etc..
What you believe, is completely subjective to you. I can never experience the exact same thing you did and, consequently, come up with the exact same conclusion you did because I'm my own person with my own experiences and it is impossible to recreate the exact conditions you experienced. So hopefully you understand now why your word might be enough to convict someone of murder in our legal system, but in our system of science, it won't get you through the door. You need to come with more than that.
I think it is very closed minded just to stomp your feet and say "No! This is the only way! Look at what this has accomplished? Dont like it? Deal with it!". Hardly an attitude to have considering the title of this sub-forum and the philosophy you guys share that includes the rule of uncertainty which your way of thinking is apparently exempt from...[/QUOTE]
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
[/QUOTE]
Why are you still saying "thats not how science works", I KNOW thats not how the scientific method works. It seems you are completely blocked off to anything that differs from science in the slightest of ways, how can we work past this?
You say "Show me something we've learned without science" and I would say things like souls, the spirit aspect of dreams and lucid dreams etc and of course you'd say those things havent been proven to exist because science hasnt discovered them so in that case science doesnt believe in them. Your demand of providing something that science didnt discover just leads to a circular argument. You say "show me something that exists that science hasnt discovered". I show. you then say "NOPE, science hasnt discovered it, so it probably doesnt exist". You do see how ridiculous that is, right?
Its not like Im even trying to force something onto you man, just an idea that will broaden your view of reality and possibility. Its you whos trying to force a belief and saying "No! Look at this, the rules say this about that so we should discredit that entirely and not take anything relating to it seriously, thats final!". It seems very childish to me. Like a spoiled kid who wants things their way or the highway. Also, I agree that if this was a face to face discussion then things would go along more smoothly and a middle ground could actually be reached but with you it seems that middle ground just HAS to be near science...
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
Hey Atheists!
Without theory, science wouldn't be very rounded would it?
Without theory, science wouldn't be very rounded would it?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Listen to me, man, how can you know something is true or real without using science?
If you can't use science to determine if something is real, it isn't. There are no exceptions. The fact that the only examples you brought up all lie in the realm of pseudoscience proves that point. Of course pseudoscientific claims can't be verified, otherwise they'd be scientific claims. Why do you seem to hate this process of validating theories within the scientific community? Do you seriously just expect a pass through the gauntlet to acceptance and think that's a good way to conduct business?
If you can't use science to determine if something is real, it isn't. There are no exceptions. The fact that the only examples you brought up all lie in the realm of pseudoscience proves that point. Of course pseudoscientific claims can't be verified, otherwise they'd be scientific claims. Why do you seem to hate this process of validating theories within the scientific community? Do you seriously just expect a pass through the gauntlet to acceptance and think that's a good way to conduct business?
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
It's faith.
If you believe in it, it will reward you.
If you don't believe in it, nothing happens.
If you believe in it, it will reward you.
If you don't believe in it, nothing happens.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
all I had to do is read the first sentence and I knew exactly where this is going and the following would just be a repeat of things I've read a million times before
It seems theres no middle ground to be had because you think that middle ground is dominated by science, which makes it far from the middle... You seriously preach this like a religion and you wonder (and assume) why people dont accept your point of view...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Facts obtained through the scientific method are concrete and consistent, there are experiments that anyone can perform anywhere on Earth to prove that they are true, every single time. There's no rational arguing with these facts, and the experiments work whether one believes they will or not.
Contrast that with supernatural claims; they (supposedly) work for some people, some of the time, depending what mood people are in, if the planets are aligned correctly, etc.. And that's IF it is not breaking some sacred trust to be able to show to the non-initiated, not for personal gain, etc.. And even among the believers in the supernatural you get disagreement among differing sects regarding what may be true or what constitutes proof.
It definitely seems to me one of these methodologies (and the information obtained by it) is superior to the other...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Except many people accept skepticismall I had to do is read the first sentence and I knew exactly where this is going and the following would just be a repeat of things I've read a million times before
It seems theres no middle ground to be had because you think that middle ground is dominated by science, which makes it far from the middle... You seriously preach this like a religion and you wonder (and assume) why people dont accept your point of view...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
It is interesting that bullshit often insists on finding a middle ground, while science never does. Similarly, religion wants to be friends with science, while science does its best to steer clear of religion. I wonder why this is...all I had to do is read the first sentence and I knew exactly where this is going and the following would just be a repeat of things I've read a million times before
It seems theres no middle ground to be had because you think that middle ground is dominated by science, which makes it far from the middle... You seriously preach this like a religion and you wonder (and assume) why people dont accept your point of view...
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
People accept things that aren't science. However, objective reality relies on science. Science is just shorthand for rigorous application critical thinking and testing claims. That's pretty dull. Science is how we learn everything we know about the world. It's not always called science however and that's why you think there are different roads to knowledge outside of using science. Using parsimony with respect to things like DMT and lucid dreaming leads most people to conclude that given the two alternatives - `Chief Walkin Eagle said:
1. that there are times when our brains can make us see and think things that aren't actually reality because of firing of neurons that don't normally occur together, and we KNOW this occurs during dreaming and psychotropic drug use.
2. That in spite of no actual evidence that our minds can exist separate and outside our actual brains, including all of the negative evidence such as failed tests when controls are put in place.
When all of the evidence both for and against is looked at in aggregate, we tend to see that poorly controlled studies tend to have better results than when good controls are put in place. My friend Banachek and the Alpha Project gives good example of this. Deception, fraud and cognitive dissonance are not good things to base reality on.
Now I am very open to the possibility of things like telepathic communication or some forms of precognition. However, I also think that if these things can be demonstrated, we will also find that there are natural explanations. Maybe some new field that we find, or some sort of quantum entanglement or something. I will not propose such a thing without evidence, but I accept that there are things that we just don't understand.
People would not have a problem with anything if naked assertions weren't made. Some of your ideas are cool, but claiming it is truth when you cannot possibly know that because alternative explanations are always possible. I accept I could be wrong about everything I believe to be true whereas you seem to claim knowledge when the whole discipline of epistemology deals with this questions of what and how we know things. If you were to provide a sound philosophical argument, whether your own or some other brilliant philosopher, why these things should be considered knowledge, great, that's the sort of discussion this forum should be about. However this, as you point out, this is the same song, we present the reasons, using sound and valid logic, while you make unfounded claims, never giving support, only sophistry.
I don't know why you seem opposed to learning some epistemology and metaphysics because I think you would actually find it interesting, but I urge you to read some of the philosophy websites.
I think you might find the following quote strange, especially when you consider that the author, Gordon Clark, is a Christian apologist (and philosopher).
This is someone that claims God and the bible are divinely inspired.
Here's one http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Highly_Advanced_Epistemology_101_for_Beginners
and http://philosophy.wikia.com/wiki/Epistemology
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/philosophy_for_beginners
I have been told, although not experienced, there are some good philosophers on Reddit, some can help you flesh out good arguments to support your ontological views.
- Status