The Human belief systems.

[Profpat]

How real will everything be for you, once you realize that you'll be condamned to the earth, eaten by worms?

How real will everything be for you, once you know your life is finished forever, and you'll never come back?

Do you really worry about dying and never coming back? Huh, it's pathetic!

Posting is just posting, but what will you do, once you know it's finished? Then some silly posting won't save you.

Hi Mr. Maes;

I don't plan on being embalmed, just thrown into a cedar or pinewood coffin, and I hope the worms and bugs have a gastronomic delight eating me. Additionally I don't believe in heaven or hell, except as we make it here on earth. Oblivion is my pick as to where I'll go since this is where I came from. Although reincarnation does make sense.

And so my suggestion to you is the same to everyone, " ENJOY YOURSELF IT'S LATER THEN YOU THINK "

Best to you and to all,

Pat

P.S. I love your thread that David started on your behalf

[David Maes]

David;


By all means if proof exists it would be extremely important to release such information. Do I think it would make a difference with the believers? –NO.

It surely would make a difference to me.

But at this moment, I think no theory can be proven absolutely.

And so my suggestion to you is the same to everyone, " ENJOY YOURSELF IT'S LATER THEN YOU THINK "

That's a great suggestion Profpat, 'carpe diem'.

[Profpat]

That's a great suggestion Profpat, 'carpe diem'.

Hi Dave;

Thats even better " seize the day "

Best,

Pat

[David Maes]

I is a philosophy of analytical methodology I accept to determine truth. That does not mean there are not those who are misusing it or attempting to discredit it. These are the people I object to most; ignorant and stupidity have no place in any field of science. Calling a religion science is oxymoronic.

I don't intend to discredit science; I'm even a fan of it.
But I just think at this moment no scientific theory can be proven absolutely.

Also think about the fact that how much we know, but also how little we know.

I don't call religion science.

BTW: My apologies for the type-O misspelling of your name.

I can't prove in a positivistic way whether you did that deliberately or not; so I accept your apologies for the type-O misspelling of my name.

Purpose:

The best way to find purpose in life, is by creating it.

Nature is determined by laws which are not egoistic nor altruistic.

Like suicide bombers knocking on your door because they care and want to save you. That's all feeling, nothing more nothing less.

I wouldn't really call that a religion, because people like that don't respect the creation.

Think about the following...

try to be empathic:

What would you think once you know your days are numbered? What would go true your mind?

Think about it, cause I don't have the slightest idea or notion or realization of such an experience.

I think when it would happen to me, I probably wouldn't care about posting or what other people think about me for example. Only one thing would go true my mind.

It's easy to say 'carpe diem' if you still would have lots of them, but what if you wouldn't? It's wouldn't be so easy anymore, think about it.

No theory or belief wouldn't be good enough.

(NB: sorry about the many posts; but I don't have much time to post; so I had to post everything at once.)

[Fluent Piffle]

P.S. I think I might hug a tree today PIF since I don't have anyone living with me, and I really do like nature.

I know you do, Pat. You are Nature! You are Life! They are the same thing, so why would you not do yourself a favour from time to time?

Oxygen to you! (and your grandson)


Sally, you ain't so silly!


Hi David Maes. You said...

But at this moment, I think no theory can be proven absolutely.

I don't think a 'theory' ever will be 'proven'. The moment a fact is discovered, it is no longer a 'theory'. We are entering the realm of belief over understanding, and only the individual can be responsible for what he lets into his mind (his understanding). It is not for us to convince others of our beliefs, that is politics, - but to help each other understand Truth by eliminating the contradictions within ourselves. When we can achieve this, there is nothing but Truth left to pass on.

Sometimes this Truth comes in particularly 'nasty' forms, and we try to avoid the 'nasty' as much as we can, but avoiding Truth causes more damage in the long-term than facing it and dealing with the consequences. The main difference is that the un-dealt-with 'nasty' Truths do not go away, whereas some of the 'nasty' ones can be eliminated, simply by understanding them. This is because we create many of these 'problems' for ourselves, just by being unnecessarily contradictory.

Simple solution, as the 'scientific method' tries to employ, is to eliminate the contradiction by understanding Truth. A similar 'method' is to be found in some 'eastern' psychology, but it all needs up-dating to correlate with that which has been physically proven since its 'time'. The psychology was good, but not physically tested, whereas the 'western' method of physical testing is obviously essential, but quite useless without a correct psychological foundation to work from... They should not contradict, but compliment, and then we may understand a 'greater picture' in more clarity.

Think about it, cause I don't have the slightest idea or notion or realization of such an experience.

Then perhaps it is YOU who needs to think about it?



pif.

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

PIF your post and signature are profound.

David I liked your carpe diem so much I thought it might be nice to share some of Horace's thought on the matter.

seu pluris hiemes seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,Whether you'll see several more winters or whether the last onequae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mareJupiter gives you is the one even now pelting the rocks on the shore with the wavesTyrrhenum: sapias, vina liques et spatio breviof the Tyrrhenian sea--be smart, drink your wine. Scale back your long hopesspem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invidato a short period. Even as we speak, envious timeaetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.is running away from us. Seize the day, trusting little in the future.


Best to all,


Pat

[David Maes]

Sometimes this Truth comes in particularly 'nasty' forms, and we try to avoid the 'nasty' as much as we can, but avoiding Truth causes more damage in the long-term than facing it and dealing with the consequences. The main difference is that the un-dealt-with 'nasty' Truths do not go away, whereas some of the 'nasty' ones can be eliminated, simply by understanding them. This is because we create many of these 'problems' for ourselves, just by being unnecessarily contradictory.

You have a deadly illness. The doctor said you only have a few months left to live; unfortunately science can't cure you. But you have no belief at all, you simply understand this nasty truth, you just think you will die and will never get back. You don't create problems, you just don't think unnecessarily contradictory.

Then perhaps it is YOU who needs to think about it?

Are you sure you don't need to think about it too?
Actually, I already knew what you posted.

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest folla; Sorry I missed your query. I do not normally discuss beliefs and thus don't subscribe to this forum.

It is my understanding that most of science is reaction based and therefore in a simplistic way it could be argued that it is exactly the same as religious belief.... you see, whilst 'God' might remain as elusive as some scientifically accepted phenomenon the effects of that God is as measurable, via believers, as any scientific outcome...

I'm not religious but then again i'm not particularly scientific... i'm just a keen watcher

Your response is one I would expect from a novice or someone attempting to suggest science is a religion or supports the existence of a god. You are quite wrong of course. Science is a methodology requiring quantitative measurements to obtain data to support a hypothesis. If you hypothesize that there is a god then in order to make your hypothesis conform to scientific methodology you must provide experimental data to support you hypotheses; otherwise science methodology says to prove it. Religious morons however always fail to accept the difference and attempt to impose belief as part of the science methodology. There is already too much unsupported belief being promoted as science; we do not need religion to impose more dogma.

It would appear you’re not such a keen watcher either.

[folla rule]

Welcome to ToeQuest folla; Sorry I missed your query. I do not normally discuss beliefs and thus don't subscribe to this forum.

Thank you for taking the time, albeit out with your normal point of interest.... to both reply to my query and to dismiss me in such a wonderfully aggressive manner.... perhaps if you're even more forceful i'll indeed concur with your point of view.

Your response is one I would expect from a novice or someone attempting to suggest science is a religion or supports the existence of a god. You are quite wrong of course. Science is a methodology requiring quantitative measurements to obtain data to support a hypothesis. If you hypothesize that there is a god then in order to make your hypothesis conform to scientific methodology you must provide experimental data to support you hypotheses; otherwise science methodology says to prove it. Religious morons however always fail to accept the difference and attempt to impose belief as part of the science methodology. There is already too much unsupported belief being promoted as science; we do not need religion to impose more dogma.

It would appear you’re not such a keen watcher either.

Before i'm converted..... let me help you iron out the crinkles in your assumptive leaps.... assuming that your mind is open to the possibility.

i said "the effects of God (as distinct from religious organisations) can be measured" in that the belief and faith some people hold as real to themselves is a direct causal effect of their notion of a God upon their lifestyles and choices....

I akin this to the hypotheses of something like the big bang theory or perhaps something unseen like dark matter.... wherein the effects of the reaction/ substance can only be measured by causal effects... to my potentially erroneous mind, it is not out with the realms of possibility to think that just because someone's belief in something is not yet (here and now) able to be supported by empirical study or absolute proof.... does not make it valid for study for as yet unknown future methodologies. I see my mind as receptive to concepts which sit beyond the limits of impossibility not just possible.

what's more without sounding pedantic.... i only likened 'religious belief' (as distinct from religion) to 'science'... this to me is where, to my naive watching you appear to have made a galactic leap into sci-fi.....

i'll explain — science is indeed a methodology which must, as you rightly say, be supported by experiential observation. However, what you seem to be promoting is that anything that does not hold up to the benchmark of scientific study is to be dismissed.... belief isn't easily dismissed in this fashion as science history bears testament to.... many times in the past outlandish 'belief' or 'premise' have formed a benchmark of its own in that, it has created hypothesises which dwell outside current limits of science knowledge.... as a modern controversial illustration i hold up the theory 'fuzzy logic'... from history i'll moot the shape of the world (flat v round).

My point is that at the beginning of any theory (scientific or not) only the dedication and belief of those who maintain a faith in what they believe or the ideas they hold.... drives scientific understanding and eventually general acceptance... and it is this point where i believe that both science and religious belief share the same fundamental essence... and therefore reject what you say, and view 'belief' as already forming an integral part of science.

Finally, i would like to point out that very few, even well respected and eminent scientist would say they have 'proven' a theories.... simply that the evidence supports their hypothesis... does that not suggest a little less black and white than your own dogma demands? (side order of irony with that Sir??)

It would appear that you Sir do not hold as philosophical a mind as you might portray, but i thank you for the warm welcome.

[dleviwing]

Before i'm converted..... let me help you iron out the crinkles in your assumptive leaps.... assuming that your mind is open to the possibility.

i said "the effects of God (as distinct from religious organisations) can be measured" in that the belief and faith some people hold as real to themselves is a direct causal effect of their notion of a God upon their lifestyles and choices....

I akin this to the hypotheses of something like the big bang theory or perhaps something unseen like dark matter.... wherein the effects of the reaction/ substance can only be measured by causal effects... to my potentially erroneous mind, it is not out with the realms of possibility to think that just because someone's belief in something is not yet (here and now) able to be supported by empirical study or absolute proof.... does not make it valid for study for as yet unknown future methodologies. I see my mind as receptive to concepts which sit beyond the limits of impossibility not just possible.

what's more without sounding pedantic.... i only likened 'religious belief' (as distinct from religion) to 'science'... this to me is where, to my naive watching you appear to have made a galactic leap into sci-fi.....

i'll explain — science is indeed a methodology which must, as you rightly say, be supported by experimental observation. However, what you seem to be promoting is that anything that does not hold up to the benchmark of scientific study is to be dismissed.... belief isn't easily dismissed in this fashion as science history bears testament to.... many times in the past outlandish 'belief' or 'premise' have formed a benchmark of its own in that, it has created hypothesises which dwell outside current limits of science knowledge.... as a modern controversial illustration i hold up the theory 'fuzzy logic'... from history i'll moot the shape of the world (flat v round).

My point is that at the beginning of any theory (scientific or not) only the dedication and belief of those who maintain a faith in what they believe or the ideas they hold.... drives scientific understanding and eventually general acceptance... and it is this point where i believe that both science and religious belief share the same fundamental essence... and therefore reject what you say, and view 'belief' as already forming an integral part of science.

Finally, i would like to point out that very few, even well respected and eminent scientist would say they have 'proven' a theories.... simply that the evidence supports their hypothesis... does that not suggest a little less black and white than your own dogma demands? (side order of irony with that Sir??)

Hi folla;
I did not intend to sound like I was dismissing you. My point was to show that the term “science” is applied to belief systems as though experimentation had been done to collect empirical evidence. Right now “String Theory” falls in the same category as religion yet Dr. Greene promotes it as science. This type of promotion is what I’m opposed to. Dr. Greene is a “True Believer” – in string theory. If being a true believer causes one to feel they have special rights to redefine the rules of the scientific discipline then I will not sugar coat my response to them. In your case I am just pointing out your naiveté; I agree, that should have had more sugar.

I can tell by your posts that you are well educated; just not in the physical sciences. Media outlets don’t always present real science; real science doesn’t sell as well as science fiction. Here on ToeQuest I have attempted to point out what is real science and what is pure media hype. Unfortunately some members are True Believers of the hype.

I want the dogma out of science; not more of it added.