And what if your doctor told you that drinking Arsenic is good for you? And as you walk out of the office, a man who says he's a car mechanic comes to you and says "did he also tell you to drink arsenic? Is he out of his mind?". Who would you side with, the doctor or the car mechanic? Here's the thing I'm getting at, which you are trying to avoid as much as possible: you have no method upon determining expertise other than your common sense. You have painted a picture in your head, that you for some reason rely on expertise, while in reality, the only person you actually are relying on, is yourself.
What happens when it's not a mind-numbingly obvious example like arsenic? You will be offered a variety of options, or even one single option, all of which are the methods and treatments that have been found to be the most effective. How would you know different? Your common sense would only come into play if your doctor was a complete madman. The idea you don't accept without thinking the benefits of science and the consensus of the experts is silly, you do it every day.
FYI I've spent enough time in school to know that most of science, math, physics, history, is just indoctrination and propaganda. So no, I don't trust experts in other fields just because they're "experts". Most would agree that doing so is actually a logical fallacy --> appeal to authority. The only time I would trust a doctor is if my life depended on it, because then I would have nothing to loose anyway. Otherwise, I steer clear of them.
Good grief. Explains a lot. The difference isn't religion here, it's culture. Paranoia about authority, it seems.
It's funny you say "I investigate what the current consensus is". The first time I read it I actually thought it said "I investigate what the current evidence is", which is a lot more logical thing to do, don't you think?
No, that's the point. How would YOU investigate the incredibly complex evidence for every single technological medical and scientific item around you every single day? You couldnt. But by your logic you should, otherwise CHAOS!! Nonsense. You are only interested in the specific areas you think challenge your religion, the rest of the scientific consensus? Ach, you couldn't care less.
Thank you! At least you are honest now, because it is true that you have no idea. What have bugged me all this time, is that you have claimed that there is no evidence for the supernatural, without actually stating that you have researched the matter yourself. If you just say that you "don't know" about the paranormal stuff, rather than there not being evidence, I think we can close this debate and I will leave it up to you to research it for yourself. If you do, you are free to come back and tell me why I'm wrong, but as it stands now I don't think we will get further than this confession.
I also don't know the ins and outs of virtually any scientific field of study. None of us can, even scientists are not experts in every field. So the idea I might be expert in the occult when I dont believe it even exists, seems odd.
No, I'm saying that 34 nobel prize winning ideas were rejected by the peer review and the scientific consensus found them wrong, only to, decades later, have to admit that they were right in the first place. Here's an entire article on problems within modern scientific inquiry: http://www.gwern.net...alezalvarez.pdf
If you only want to read the stuff about peer review, jump to the end of page nine, where it says "When peer review reinforces orthodoxy rather than quality". Read on from there, and starting on the next page there are detailed (one paragraph) descriptions for each and every paper of those 34 that was right, but was rejectec by your precious "scientific consensus". This is only those 34 who fought the battle for their ideas and won. Think of all who get rejected by "consensus" and simply give up? Or those who got rejected, prooved themselves right, but didn't get a nobel prize? And so, we wont even ever hear of them. Previously you also stated that this is the best system we've got? Really? What about before 1950's, when peer review was barely established? Didn't science made any progress back then? What makes peer review such an important part of science? Clearly, I have evidence that not only can science do fine without it, but it also hinders science. Where is your evidence that it helps science?
Okay, I'm with you know. So science, and the scientific method isn't perfect and has gone down blind alleys and been slow to adopt the theories which turned out correct. This is not a surprise, is it? The real question is what is your alternative? Reading a paper, thinking hey, that matches my personal belief, it's almost certainly true. I don't think so. I go back to Dr (ex) Andrew Wakefield who caused chaos - still does - with his claims about vaccines. He was believable, people felt it sounded right, but he was wrong and dangerously so. How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise? There will never be 100% accuracy. In anything.
What kind of experiments? Again, 1) demons are beings who can think and are not bound by the laws of physics
As far as i know, they dont exist. They might, but I dont believe so.
So, if I would drop a pen in front of your eyes, let it fall on the floor, and say "this is proof of gravity" would you say "I don't know, I'm not an expert". C'mon
Oh I'd see the result. I wouldnt know - being a layman - what the cause was. The reason I believe it's gravity? Science. (not a youtube video) and scientific consensus, of course.
This... is... Unbelievable, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence in a way that I don't think anyone could do unless they were on some kind of drugs. I mean, no offense and all, but you say "No", as in a responce to my statement "You do care", and then you say "I think science is worth defending". Wait, what? If you think that science is worth defending, then you care, otherwise you would not think so. And if you think that evolution is science, then you care about defending evolution, since it's a part of science (according to you), and thus also a subject of you thinking of it as "worth defending". The thought "worth defending" itself is caring, if you didn't care you would not think this. How is this more than common sense?'
I think science is worth defending, but evolution - or any specific field - isn't something that I am obsessed with or emotional about. The point is I couldnt care less which theory proves correct, I have no attachment to any of them. I do think the process is important, as it leads to discovery and knowledge.
Yes, you seem to have a special place for evolution in your heart, where you accept it as science regardless of the amount fo evidence (or lack thereof )
I think the same about evolution as every other area of science. But there arent people attacking other areas in the way evolution is attacked for ideological reasons. Its not me that has an emotional reaction to evolution.
Attack on evolution is attack on science? "Indoctrination is strong with this one."
No, evolution could fall as a theory tomorrow, wouldnt concern me. Because it would be being replaced by something that better explained the evidence. Thats science. The attacks on evolution are unique to evolution, and based entirely on ideology and religion. Therefore they are an attack on science, regardless of the evidence.
Sure, documentaries are not evidence, but my point is they are not the same as transformers movies either. And yes, you are right, they can give a topic to investigate if one is interested. But not investigating and then saying "the documentary doesn't provide the correct information" is a bit arrogant, don't you think?
I'll give you that, transformers movies are a special kind of rubbish but my point was they are both entertainment, neither are scientific evidence or designed to be so.
Ironic, isn't it? We live in a world where there is more truth taught in the movies than there is taught in public schools. Also, I assume "it's", as you are reffering to, probably, the only article you read, if even that. The evidence of this is in most movies, most tv shows, and almost every new pop-song coming out. Remember what all science rests upon? Research.
Evidence of what exactly? Are you suggesting all the different writers, producers and directors who make movies are all in league, promoting the devil? They would need to be, surely?
No, but your answer says a great deal about you. If you have no idea what sort of "evidence" would change your mind, then I think it's quite intellectually dishonest to then go on and say that there is no evidence for the supernatural.
Its the other way round. If I dont believe it exists - and I dont - then Im not sure what would need to happen to convince me. Im not saying it couldnt happen. Im an agnostic atheist, I dont believe, but Im not discounting that the supernatural might exist.
Nah, it's fine. It's not about honesty, more like your mind understands that if you "get" my question, you will be forced to a reply that makes you retreat. But if you pretend to have missinterpreted the question, then your worldview is safe. I think this happens unconcsiously when people are starting to feel that they are getting cornered. I've had this same experience with many other atheists (and even theists).
But I also think you perhaps assume there is an unconscious "worldview" in these answers, when in fact it's actually not that. It's absence of what you would call worldview, I think. I sometimes think the religious aspect of the creationist view means that a similar deference to an ideology that doesn;t require evidence but just faith is projected onto the atheist, and the scientist. (not sure that sentence made sense)
Hope all the arrogancy on my part doesn't scare you off. I don't want to come off as rude, just playing with words. (You know, creating a good "debate" atmosphere.) But if you think I'm starting to cross a line, I'll stop.
No it's all good. Some other people here are ... um ... quite rude and sound distinctly angry
1. "Good grief. Explains a lot. The difference isn't religion here, it's culture. Paranoia about authority, it seems."
Nah, not really. Doctors in Sweden are highly incompetent. This isn't paranoia, it's really common sense here, most laymen agree on this. At least general doctors and surgeons. If you want some real knowledge, you go to a specialist, which costs about 1000$ per hour, so... (No, I'm not joking, specialists doctors really do cost about one thousand dollars per hour in Sweden, so you better have some insurance, or be under age of 18.) I happened to live in a society that doesn't value education (Sweden got some terrible results in the last PISA examination). There are barely any real experts here at all,(i.e. the ones who know what they're talking about, not just those who have a paper on which it says "Philosophie Doctor") which is why we don't produce anything, except maybe video games. We just buy cheap stuff from China, Indonesia and Thailand, and then sell it here for 100x the price and call that domestic growth. Whenever there is a big scientific project going on, there are always scientists coming in from Germany, France and GB. That's because most sweds know that trusting "the experts" here in Sweden can have fatal consequences. So, I know this is besides the point, but I just don't want you to think that I'm totally paranoid, just because I happened to live in a different culture, which has taught me a different view of "scientific consensus".
2. "No, that's the point. How would YOU investigate the incredibly complex evidence for every single technological medical and scientific item around you every single day? You couldnt. But by your logic you should, otherwise CHAOS!! Nonsense. You are only interested in the specific areas you think challenge your religion, the rest of the scientific consensus? Ach, you couldn't care less."
Well, actually... I studied molecular biology, after this I came to realize that evolution is impossible (I didn't believe in the ToE before either, but this was the last nail in the coffin). I took a course in physics, after which I stopped believing in gravity. Then I took a course in general relativity and theory behind Leibnitz length contraction. After which I stopped believing in Einsteins theories altogether, because the evidence says against them. After all this I've drawn the conclusion that the more I learn about contemporary science, the more it seems to be stuck back in 1910's. Almost everything is just ad hoc theories to save 100 years old (incorrect) views. Thus, I now bet that it's safer to have a starting point of not trusting the contemporary scientific consensus at all, and only trust it when I have been presented the evidence that convince me, rather than the other way around.
3. "I also don't know the ins and outs of virtually any scientific field of study. None of us can, even scientists are not experts in every field. So the idea I might be expert in the occult when I dont believe it even exists, seems odd."
Sure. However the argument was that you claimed there not to be evidence for the supernatural, while stating that you haven't researched the matter yourself. So, I simply appreciate that you now say that you don't know, rather than there not being evidence.
4. "Okay, I'm with you know. So science, and the scientific method isn't perfect and has gone down blind alleys and been slow to adopt the theories which turned out correct. This is not a surprise, is it? The real question is what is your alternative? Reading a paper, thinking hey, that matches my personal belief, it's almost certainly true. I don't think so. I go back to Dr (ex) Andrew Wakefield who caused chaos - still does - with his claims about vaccines. He was believable, people felt it sounded right, but he was wrong and dangerously so. How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise? There will never be 100% accuracy. In anything."
I wasn't talking about science, nor the scientific method. I was talking about peer review, and how scientific consensus hinders real science and real discoveries. That was my point.
I think science works best when it's capitalistic, just like it was before 1950's. The ideas that gave the most innovation and were the most useful, those are the ones that lived throughout all this hundreds of years. Now, after 1950's, we get a bunch of "science" like quantum mechanics and theorital physics, which no one really cares about, and at the same time, real discoveries that have real innovation value are being hindered from exploration due to scientific consensus. Science today is not the same as it was 100 years ago. Back then it was about exploration, finding the unknown. Today it's just "agreeing with everyone so that I can get my Ph.D. as soon as possible". Such a shame.
5. "How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise?"
I know I've already replied to your entire paragraph, but I just wanted to give a quick comment to this particular sentence. Tell me now, why were the 34 nobel prize winners rejected by peer review and the scientific consensus? Clearly, they had the testing and experimentation done on their part, had the real evidence, and were still rejected. How come?
You already know my answer: because peer review doesn't work. But I'd like to see your answer.
6. "As far as i know, they dont exist. They might, but I dont believe so."
"Might", that's a good start. I wont be pushing for more today.
7. "Oh I'd see the result. I wouldnt know - being a layman - what the cause was. The reason I believe it's gravity? Science. (not a youtube video) and scientific consensus, of course."
8. "I think science is worth defending, but evolution - or any specific field - isn't something that I am obsessed with or emotional about. The point is I couldnt care less which theory proves correct, I have no attachment to any of them. I do think the process is important, as it leads to discovery and knowledge."
But here's the thing, as I'm sure you have noticed: on this site, many people don't think that evolution follows the necessary scientific steps that makes it a scientific theory. To me, evolution is theology, not biology. I too think the process of science is important, but I don't think evolution follows it. I hope you understand the difference, but I haven't read of anyone on this forum attacking scientific method per se, instead we agree that scientific method is good, but that the theory of evolution doesn't follow it.
9. "I think the same about evolution as every other area of science."
And here is where the disagreement lies. I simply don't see ToE as scientific.
10. "But there arent people attacking other areas in the way evolution is attacked for ideological reasons."
Well, evolution attacked religion first, so...
11. "No, evolution could fall as a theory tomorrow, wouldnt concern me. Because it would be being replaced by something that better explained the evidence. Thats science."
Well, no. First, evolution will never fall by mere scientific inquiry. It was designed to be the theory that wouldn't fall, and wouldn't be questioned.
12. "The attacks on evolution are unique to evolution, and based entirely on ideology and religion. Therefore they are an attack on science, regardless of the evidence."
But evolution is one of many theories that claims to be scientific, without evidence! I'm fine with quantum mechanics, because it falls under theoretical physics, so it acknowledges itself not to have any clear-cut evidence. But ToE says it has evidence, and then rejects the fact that evidence fall flat when under close scientific scrutiny of different branches of science. It's also interesting that you say "regardless of the evidence". It sounds as if it doesn't matter if there are any evidence for evolution, it's still an attack on science. And that's sounds funny to me
13. "I'll give you that, transformers movies are a special kind of rubbish but my point was they are both entertainment, neither are scientific evidence or designed to be so."
14. "Evidence of what exactly? Are you suggesting all the different writers, producers and directors who make movies are all in league, promoting the devil?"
Yapp. The entertainment industry is controlled by a satanic elite. I didn't really wanted to go off topic, but since you asked...
Here's a confession by Bob Dylon that he sold his soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=IqvvOD4bdRs
Katy Perry admitting she sold her soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=10rx15v28yk
(Notice that the other girl doing the interview has the upside-down cross, which is a satanic symbol.)
Kenye West admitting he sold his soul to the devil (after the 2:00 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=bbmiOBN3U7Y
Here's Eminem stating he hears the voice of the devil in his head (after about 1:35 man): https://www.youtube....h?v=5UnNRFt2iqw
(Also, notice how the entire song is about demonic possession.)
Here's another good compilation that should make you think twice about the entertainment industry: https://www.youtube....h?v=EIhdTY3x830
Here's Denzel Washington stating he invites spirits (?) to possess his body in order ot seem like a good actor (starts at about 0:55 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=D5oOY2C9wdI
It's also ironic how the woman at 0:16 mark says "it was so electrifying that it came through the television". This is a known ability of demons: they can enter your home and you rlife if you watch movies of people been possessed (I don't know the physics of it all, but the fact that they can remains). Don't you think it's weird that Hollywood continues to produce these movies year after year, despite most of them having no cinematographic value at all?
At about 1:30 mark in the video there is a reading of a text written by Oprah Winfrey on how she explains acting in a very similar way to how Denzel Washington explained it.
Here's Jay Z wearing "do what thou wilt" shirt:
"Do what thou wilt" was a motto of a famous self-proclaimed satanist and child molester Aleister Crowley (http://en.wikipedia....leister_Crowley), who has claimed that he communicated with Satan, wrote a bunch of books on the occult and magik (with "k"), aswell as started a whole bunch of satanic cults & organizations.
Crowley referred to himself as "Aeon of Horus". Horus is another name of Satan (hence "the eye of Horus" symbolism that vigilantcitizen site exposes, among other sites).
Now, my question is, why do all these people say that they sold their soul, or that they work with spirits? You can debunk the videos one by one, but why do they all say that? Why don't someone say "I had s@x with a producer", or something like that? Nope, they all say "I sold my soul to the devil/Satan".
Why do you think there is "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" or "New order fo the ages", more accurately "new secular order" written on the 1$ bill? Why do you think there is a pyramid and same eye of horus on the 1$ bill? And why is, "coincidentally", dollar the current currency of the world (aka petrodollar)? Why do all Hollywood stars claim they sold their souls? Why does this eye of Horus appears in Derren Brown show to signify before and after the commercial break: https://www.youtube....h?v=MT3izBQfh5M, and why is the show called "Derren Brown - Messiah" as if to blaspheme/make fun of Christianity? Why do the most influential people from all over the world meet every year in something called the "Bilderberg group"? http://vigilantcitiz...cial-attendees/ . This meeting is highly guarded, and no juornalists or press is allowed. Why? What are they doing at these meetings?
The truth is... Satan runs this world.
"8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." - Matthew 4:8-10 (KJV)
"33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." - John 18:33-36 (KJV)
"7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." - John 16:7-11 (KJV)
Don't you think it's interesting that when Jesus replied to Satan in Mark 4, He didn't say "liar, this world belongs to thy God", or something like that? Instead, He simply says that one should worship God. Also, who is the "prince of this world", spoken of in John 16:11?
See, this, among other things, is what makes Christianity different from all other religions. Many religions have "good guys & bad guys". But the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only religious scripture in the entire world that says it sraight into your face: evil runs this world, not good. Why? Because power over the world was given over to mankind. And corrupted people gave this power away to Satan. And there it has been, preserved, ever since. Every major event in history is not just some random revolution or economical restructuring. Everything is carefully planned several hundred years in advence.
Since I'm already in the full conspiracy theory assertion mode, I might aswell touch on the issue of the theory of evolution.
Evolution was tutored to Charles Darwin by Satan himself. Just like Jesus taught His disciples, so did Satan follow (in spiritual presence, not physical) Darwin for years and taught the basic principles of the theory of evolution. Theory of evolution was actually proponed already by Goethe, 70-80 years before Darwin: http://en.wikipedia....Scientific_work. Strangely, when Goethe got old he also wrote a book about a man who sold his soul to the devil to gain knowledge about the world. Coincidence? No, Goethe simply wanted to write an autobiography, but knew that no one would believe him, so he called it "fiction", but those who understand, know that it was his attempt at telling his life story.
Satan understood that theory of evolution would be help for both atheism and satanism to gain its foot, aswell as destroy the words of Genesis in anyone who comes to believe in this theory. Also, don't you think it's a major historical coincidence that every western country installed public schools between 1830-1870? And that in the period between 1870 and 1920 almost all countries had public schools made compulsory? Coincidence? Off course not, it's all planned for the indoctrination of the masses. Think also of the club X and the fact that most institutions were established around the fact that theory of evolution was true, period. There was no questioning this. And the thing is, there never will be...
I don't write on this site because I think some scientist might read this and start to fight the theory of evolution. There has already been a lot of scientists who've done this, but none has come out victorious. Theory of evolution will be taught in school no matter evidence for or against it, till some major events on historical scale (like antichrist coming to Earth or the Judgement day) will happen. And so, my only hope is to tell the truth to the individuals who trapped themselves in Satan's delusion. I can't force you to come out of it, only you can free yourself from the lies all around you and start seeing the truth. But what I can do, is try and plant a seed, a seed of doubt in your mind, that you will hopefully let grow, and over the time come to be saved by the glory and grace of Jesus Christ.
15. "Its the other way round. If I dont believe it exists - and I dont - then Im not sure what would need to happen to convince me. Im not saying it couldnt happen. Im an agnostic atheist, I dont believe, but Im not discounting that the supernatural might exist."
Okay then. This is a quite different tone from the "there is no evidence for the supernatural". So I will not push you for more. I simply hope that the seed is planted, now we just wait
16. "But I also think you perhaps assume there is an unconscious "worldview" in these answers, when in fact it's actually not that. It's absence of what you would call worldview, I think. "
Everyone has a worldview they rely upon. This worldview is very hard to challenge. And I'm not just talking about atheists, I'm talking about everyone. I may also be close-minded at times, and I can admit that there are certain core "beliefs" that I would have a very hard time changing (for example if you would say that the next time I drop a pen, it will "fall" upwards.) But I try and control this and answer any questions as honestly as possible, regardless of my worldview. However, I found that in other people, both atheists and theists, such is not the case. A lot of people start, whether consciously or unconsciously, missinterpreting the questions that, if given an honest answer, will force them ro reevaluate their worldview. An example of this is the fact that everytime I mention flaws in peer review, you seem to "missinterpret" it as if I was talking about the scientific method. This is clearly evidence of you putting too much trust in scientific consensus, and rather than reevaluating how much trust is too much, you simply dodge the question and just jump on an entirely unrelated topic.
But again, I think this happens with most people. I probably do it too sometimes. It's just easier to notice this when others are doing it, than when I myself am doing it. I guess such is the human nature.
17. "I sometimes think the religious aspect of the creationist view means that a similar deference to an ideology that doesn;t require evidence but just faith is projected onto the atheist, and the scientist. (not sure that sentence made sense)"
Nope, it didn't . Take into consideration that English is not my native tongue, so if you think that you don't fully comprehend what you've written, chances are I won't at all. Just a heads up
18. "No it's all good. Some other people here are ... um ... quite rude and sound distinctly angry "
Yes, even though I regard Christians as my brothers and sisters, sometimes I do get upset with them for not controlling their emotions.