|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2005 : 17:21:07
|
|
I see that many of you are skeptics, which is fine. I myself am not a skeptic. But I was wondering what makes a person a skeptic? And not just a skeptic of some things but anything that may sound different. It seems that the new dogma of life has shifted from religion, to 'science'. When both indoctrinate you to only think a certain way, or shut you down from thinking altogether. I would like to discuss these things with the rest of you, because I have been studying nwo, ufo, and other things that have prompted me to think that everything in this world is subjective, or from a subjective point of view, no matter what it is (science included). Some people would not believe it even if an alien landed on their front yard and might say that it was a hologram or illusion because in 'their' reality, aliens don't exist.Evidence is all suggestive, its just whether we identify it or not. You see, we create our own reality, first in our minds, and then externally. I have heard many people say that aliens could not visit the earth because of the amount of fuel it will take. Well I see it like this, there are many alternative energy sources, some science has identified and others they have not identified or identified in its entirety. Just because human kind has not found an alternative to fuel to soar the cosmos, does not mean that something else hasn't. To think so would be egotistical. Furthermore, there is a ton of 'evidence' that can be perceived as so, but not unless we take a serious look at these things seriously. As far as hard evidence goes, I think it all goes on who has control of the mass media, and educational systems. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/04/01/NOAM_CHOMSKY.htmlhttp://www.intertainer.com/fcc.html http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/mergerwars/mergerwars.html http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_diller.html http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/09/1458256http://www.linkcrusader.com/AltNews+Media.htm
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 18:25:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But I was wondering what makes a person a skeptic?
In general, critical thinking. Questioning what we hear, having high standards of evidence, thinking logically.
quote:
And not just a skeptic of some things but anything that may sound different.
First of all, there is a large difference between not believing in something and being skeptical of something. When you are skeptical of something, you question it. You don't decide before hand whether it is true or not. You say to yourself, "Does this make sense with what I already know?" For example, a guy runs up to you and says that his water would only boil once it reached 150 degrees Celius. And you think to yourself, "That can't be right," because all of your past experiences tell you that water boils at 100 degrees. So you question it. My first question would be, "Did you mix anything in the water?"
Now take something like aliens. Let's say person X claims to have seen an alien. Did anyone else see it? Why not? Did they leave any traces of their presense behind?
If no, then all you have is a person's word. People have been known to be mistaken, mixed up, and even other natural explainations such as sleep paralysis. There is also a great tendency to exaggerate claim where, "An alien in my house," turs out to be, "My floor made a creak when no one was walking on it."
quote:
It seems that the new dogma of life has shifted from religion, to 'science'.
The difference between science and religion is that you must show it to be true before science excepts it. And even when it is accepted, if you can show it wrong, you win a prize (at least most of the time).
quote:
Some people would not believe it even if an alien landed on their front yard and might say that it was a hologram or illusion because in 'their' reality, aliens don't exist.
There is a difference between, "Aliens don't exist," and "There is no evidence for the existance of aliens." Skeptics usually think the latter.
quote:
You see, we create our own reality, first in our minds, and then externally.
Well I know that isn't true, because if I created my own reality, why am I not the ruler of the Universe?
Oh, and here is a good thought experiment for this type of thinking.
quote:
I have heard many people say that aliens could not visit the earth because of the amount of fuel it will take.
We ourselves are experimmenting with interstellar travel, I don't see why aliens couldn't.
quote:
Just because human kind has not found an alternative to fuel to soar the cosmos, does not mean that something else hasn't.
Correct, this form of argument is called Argument from Ignorance. "We don't know how to do it, so therefore it can't be done." Which is flawed logic.
quote:
As far as hard evidence goes, I think it all goes on who has control of the mass media, and educational systems.
As far as evidence goes, it does not depend on the media, but public knowlege of it does. And besides, the media thus far has been fairly UFO friendly. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
 |
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:19:53 [Permalink]
|
Why is there no evidence for aliens existing? How is we don't know it so it could exist logically flawed?
Skeptics tend to generalize everything into one clump, and that is the most unscientific thing I have ever heard. At one point, no one thought flying was possible period. Were the people at that time also logically flawed? You are the master of your own universe, not everyone else's my friend. There is much more than pictures and eyewitness testimony out there. But if you want to get technical, people are put to death for eyewitness testimony, and I don't think that science is more important than a human beings life.
My point is that humans have flaws, and ultimately, science is man made. If we, humans, were perfect, thousands of people would not die everyday to government issued cigarettes and other atrocities like genocide would not exist.
My job is not to convince you of anything, because you will not believe or buy into anything, just to think about some things. And yes science has become dogmatic, because there are certain guidelines you have to follow before presenting information to the public.Do you know who funds these projects? At the root the government. At what point is this information not filtered through before we actually get it? It seems to me the narrative for how human life and science has already been written before the info is formulatted thoroughly.
Would you like to know how education in the west is dogmatic? It works like this, indoctrination is when you force feed someone information and tell them not to interpret it or think about it, but just take it how it is and that's it. Well the education system works like this, you memorize information, most of it you don't get to evaluate or critical think about it and maybe the pros and cons and countless other things out there that a human being who is capable of infinite thought could have to aply to this. Instead you are told to remember this info, and spit it back out that way on paper and if you don't you will not progress. In other words we are given 'facts'to take in as truths, no matter what we may think or feel or whatever, and told this is all there is and you better know it or else you will not get the things you want or what have you. This is a problem for me in an institution of learning. We all have things to learn from eachother and so on, letters behind our names or not. We are all still flawed humans.
My point is that yes science can be and is dogmatic for the most parts. Math is pretty universal, but to say that we know all there is to know, or close to it is nonesense. I would like you to know that I say these things with conviction, and my job is not to convince anybody anything.
Franz Heider is a psychologist who created what is known as naive psychology. Which is the study of why people think life is predictable to fit their own psychological fears. He said that people tend to make the unpredictable predictable in their own minds to make a scary world, not so scary or unpredictable, when in fact it is. There are many aspects to this, but I don't think any of you will pay it any mind.And when you come up with ideas outside of the dogma you don't get a prize, you usually get ignored or fired or ostricized, good joke though. |
| Edited by - HYBRID on 07/11/2005 19:49:48 |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:28:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
Why is there no evidence for aliens existing?
I guess because no one has ever got their hands on any?
quote:
How is we don't know it so it could exist logically flawed?
Reread Ricky's post. That's not what he typed.
The rest of your post reads like a conspiracy theory. Please try and space out and format your posts better. It's very difficult to read. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:30:24 [Permalink]
|
Hi HYBRID, and welcome!
Me, I'll accept anything no matter how outrageous it might be -- provided that it is presented with emperical evidence in it's support and references that I can research.
But before we go any further, here's a link that you might find handy when arguing on a skeptical forum: The Logical Fallacies. These will show you how not to do it.
So, let's briefly look at the UFO question. Virtually all of the evidence that I have seen presented is ancedotal and as such, really supports nothing. UFO ancedotes and fish stories have a lot in common in that they belong to the teller, whose veracity is always in question, whatever the topic and the teller's qualifications. Therefore, ancedotes are not evidence unless they are supported by researchable documentation. And then, they are no longer ancedotes, are they? Further, it is the claiment's responsibility to provide support for the claim, not the skeptic's to prove it false. The claim must stand upon it's own merits.
So, I would say to the UFO claiment (and the Bigfoot claiment, and the Loch Ness Monster claiment, and so forth), "Produce one or failing that, at least something other than some funky, photoshopped, out of focus snapshot."
I'll be a long time waiting, methinks.
What am I skeptical of, exactly? I dunno. Whaddya got? 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:34:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
Why is there no evidence for aliens existing? How is we don't know it so it could exist logically flawed? Skeptics tend to generalize everything into one clump, and that is the most unscientific thing I have ever heard. At one point, no one thought flying was possible period. Were the people at that time also logically flawed? You are the master of your own universe, not everyone else's my friend. There is much more than pictures and eyewitness testimony out there. But if you want to get technical, people are put to death for eyewitness testimony, and I don't think that science is more important than a human beings life. My point is that humans have flaws, and ultimately, science is man made. If we, humans, were perfect, thousands of people would not die everyday to government issued cigarettes and other atrocities like genocide would not exist. My job is not to convince you of anything, because you will not believe or buy into anything, just to think about some things. And yes science has become dogmatic, because there are certain guidelines you have to follow before presenting information to the public.Do you know who funds these projects? At the root the government. At what point is this information not filtered through before we actually get it? It seems to me the narrative for how human life and science has already been written before the info is formulatted thoroughly. Would you like to know how education in the west is dogmatic? It works like this, indoctrination is when you force feed someone information and tell them not to interpret it or think about it, but just take it how it is and that's it. Well the education system works like this, you memorize information, most of it you don't get to evaluate or critical think about it and maybe the pros and cons and countless other things out there that a human being who is capable of infinite thought could have to aply to this. Instead you are told to remember this info, and spit it back out that way on paper and if you don't you will not progress. In other words we are given 'facts'to take in as truths, no matter what we may think or feel or whatever, and told this is all there is and you better know it or else you will not get the things you want or what have you. This is a problem for me in an institution of learning. We all have things to learn from eachother and so on, letters behind our names or not. We are all still flawed humans. My point is that yes science can be and is dogmatic for the most parts. Math is pretty universal, but to say that we know all there is to know, or close to it is nonesense. I would like you to know that I say these things with conviction, and my job is not to convince anybody anything. Franz Heider is a psychologist who created what is known as naive psychology. Which is the study of why people think life is predictable to fit their own psychological fears. He said that people tend to make the unpredictable predictable in their own minds to make a scary world, not so scary or unpredictable, when in fact it is. There are many aspects to this, but I don't think any of you will pay it any mind.And when you come up with ideas outside of the dogma you don't get a prize, you usually get ignored or fired or ostricized, good joke though.
I'm sorry bro, but I can't read this. This is a badly run-on paragraph and my eyes are too old to break it down. Would you kindly use proper structure in your writing?
Thanks.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:42:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
HYBRID:
You see, we create our own reality, first in our minds, and then externally.
So why then would you care if some of us are skeptical of the idea that aliens from other worlds are actively visiting us? Didn't you create us to be this way? If the above quote is true, than it is the only thing that is true. All other ideas would have equal value. And if all ideas have equal value, created by our beliefs, than no ideas have any value at all.
As skeptics we use tools to evaluate claims of fact. We are curious and want to know what value, if any, notions like the possibility that aliens are visiting us have. What is the evidence for that, we ask? You will not need those tools however, since we are your creation. You have created your reality and we are in it…
Welcome to SFN Hybrid.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:44:35 [Permalink]
|
I am terribly sorry for the run ons and space. As for the Logical Fallicies, no thanks, I don't like to be told how to think. Because that's what it seems to me.
If you think that ALL info is filtered before it reaches us, then I think I just saw a pig flying in my room. How do you know that no one has had their hands on emperical evidence? How would you find out? If info is filtered, and it is, then how would you get this, cnn, fox, the newspapers? Seems unlikely.
Do you also think that world leaders, including the us presidents have the best interest of the people in their minds too, another pig just flew by. Why is this reading like a conspricy, because I question things? Well excuse me for thinking.Putting all ideas that incriminate people for hiding something into the conspiracy group is logically flawed.
To think that some people would not secretly do bad things to others is like a child thinking pro wrestling is real. People lie, cheat, steal, rape, and kill! And people in this country including the government, are no exception! This is the modern day fairy tell. 'The leaders of the free world will lead us to the light, they are really nice people', excuse me while I go read my bedtime story. |
|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:48:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
HYBRID:
You see, we create our own reality, first in our minds, and then externally.
So why then would you care if some of us are skeptical of the idea that aliens from other worlds are actively visiting us? Didn't you create us to be this way? If the above quote is true, than it is the only thing that is true. All other ideas would have equal value. And if all ideas have equal value, created by our beliefs, than no ideas have any value at all.
As skeptics we use tools to evaluate claims of fact. We are curious and want to know what value, if any, notions like the possibility that aliens are visiting us have. What is the evidence for that, we ask? You will not need those tools however, since we are your creation. You have created your reality and we are in it…
Welcome to SFN Hybrid.
How cute, this did not mean much though. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:56:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
HYBRID:
You see, we create our own reality, first in our minds, and then externally.
So why then would you care if some of us are skeptical of the idea that aliens from other worlds are actively visiting us? Didn't you create us to be this way? If the above quote is true, than it is the only thing that is true. All other ideas would have equal value. And if all ideas have equal value, created by our beliefs, than no ideas have any value at all.
As skeptics we use tools to evaluate claims of fact. We are curious and want to know what value, if any, notions like the possibility that aliens are visiting us have. What is the evidence for that, we ask? You will not need those tools however, since we are your creation. You have created your reality and we are in it…
Welcome to SFN Hybrid.
How cute, this did not mean much though.
My reply goes to the heart of post modernist thinking. If you think my comment on the absurdity of statements like “we create our own reality,” is simply being cute and does not mean much, there is not much I can do about that. But again, if you actually believe that we create our reality, why on earth does it matter to you what we think?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 19:58:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
How cute, this did not mean much though.
Doesn't mean mean much lol? That is the meaning taken from your posts!
I guess you're going to be one of those guys who says a lot but can't be held to any of it, right?
Science is just another religion, unless the science supports your claim. Not believing in [insert woo woo claim here] means that we're dogmatically close-minded and would refuse to believe if [insert woo woo claim here] came up and smacked us on our faces; yet extraordinary claims based on nothing substantial should be taken as fact without question. The evidence is there if skeptics would only ask to look at it--except when we ask the evidence it's gone because the government is covering it all up.
*Yawn*
You've said nothing new or enlightening. Except this: "As for the Logical Fallicies, no thanks, I don't like to be told how to think." That was a new one on me. Thanks for the laugh.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 20:01:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why is this reading like a conspricy, because I question things? Well excuse me for thinking.
quote:
But if you want to get technical, people are put to death for eyewitness testimony, and I don't think that science is more important than a human beings life.
quote:
Do you know who funds these projects? At the root the government. At what point is this information not filtered through before we actually get it?
quote:
In other words we are given 'facts' to take in as truths, no matter what we may think or feel or whatever, and told this is all there is and you better know it or else you will not get the things you want or what have you.
So you're proposing that somehow, the governments of the world have been able to place controls on the flow of information that are so tight, that any ideas that conflict with the government's views are filtered out before they have any chance of reaching us. And in some cases, people who have witnessed the truth are executed.
Any evidence of this? Oops, stupid question, the evidence was destroyed before I could find it.... :-/ |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 20:07:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
I am terribly sorry for the run ons and space. As for the Logical Fallicies, no thanks, I don't like to be told how to think. Because that's what it seems to me.
If you think that ALL info is filtered before it reaches us, then I think I just saw a pig flying in my room. How do you know that no one has had their hands on emperical evidence? How would you find out? If info is filtered, and it is, then how would you get this, cnn, fox, the newspapers? Seems unlikely.
Do you also think that world leaders, including the us presidents have the best interest of the people in their minds too, another pig just flew by. Why is this reading like a conspricy, because I question things? Well excuse me for thinking.Putting all ideas that incriminate people for hiding something into the conspiracy group is logically flawed.
To think that some people would not secretly do bad things to others is like a child thinking pro wrestling is real. People lie, cheat, steal, rape, and kill! And people in this country including the government, are no exception! This is the modern day fairy tell. 'The leaders of the free world will lead us to the light, they are really nice people', excuse me while I go read my bedtime story.
I think that you failed to read my previous post, the one before the whine about the run-on.
If you really believe that skeptics automatically accept all of the blather that comes from the media, world leaders, jackleg polititions and motormouth preachers, you are badly mistaken. And we hold science to the highest standards of all; the others are expected to lie.
Do people secretly do bad things? You betcha! Hell they do 'em right out in plain sight and the general state of critical thinking today let's them get away with it. The current administration is a prime example.
The Logical Fallacies are not a set of arbitraty rules. They merely define certain, well, fallicies such as ancedotal 'evidence' and so forth. They point out traps to be avoided.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 20:09:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID...
I see that many of you are skeptics, which is fine. I myself am not a skeptic. But I was wondering what makes a person a skeptic? And not just a skeptic of some things but anything that may sound different.
The definition of skepticism generally accepted by the skeptics on this forum is, more or less, "skepticism: a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method."quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID...
It seems that the new dogma of life has shifted from religion, to 'science'. When both indoctrinate you to only think a certain way, or shut you down from thinking altogether. I would like to discuss these things with the rest of you, because I have been studying nwo, ufo, and other things that have prompted me to think that everything in this world is subjective, or from a subjective point of view, no matter what it is (science included).
"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randiquote:
Originally posted by HYBRID...
Some people would not believe it even if an alien landed on their front yard and might say that it was a hologram or illusion because in 'their' reality, aliens don't exist. Evidence is all suggestive, its just whether we identify it or not. You see, we create our own reality, first in our minds, and then externally.
Perhaps you create your own reality in your mind, but that is more accurately referred to as a delusion or a fantasy. The scientific process, as applied by skeptics and scientists, actually is an attempt to develop a view which is nearly the exact opposite of your understanding of reality. We do not create some arbitrary impression of the world in our minds, then set about the task of creating that reality out in the world. You may have mistaken skeptics for religious folks.quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID...
I have heard many people say that aliens could not visit the earth because of the amount of fuel it will take. Well I see it like this, there are many alternative energy sources, some science has identified and others they have not identified or identified in its entirety. Just because human kind has not found an alternative to fuel to soar the cosmos, does not mean that something else hasn't. To think so would be egotistical.
I don't think you'll find many skeptics who dismiss the possibility that there are alternative modes of space transportation that have yet to be discovered or explored by us mere earthlings. So, where your above comment might be fairly accepted as true, it is impossible to use these statements to support the idea that space aliens have in fact visited the earth.quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID...
Furthermore, there is a ton of 'evidence' that can be perceived as so, but not unless we take a serious look at these things seriously. As far as hard evidence goes, I think it all goes on who has control of the mass media, and educational systems.
Scientists and skeptics welcome new knowledge. We encourage the development of it and embrace it with open arms. There is no worldwide conspiracy among scientists, media people, governments, and/or skeptics to prevent substantial investigation of the claims of alien visitors. Those "tons" of evidence you mention are mostly anecdotal, single stories told by individuals or small groups, often with some agenda that is advanced by the telling of their tales. Most remaining "evidence" is the result of distorted logic, for example: We don't know for sure that [fill in the blank] does not exist therefore it must exist.
To repeat Mr. Randi's comment, "What's left is magic. And it doesn't work."
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 07/11/2005 20:18:10 |
|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 20:24:29 [Permalink]
|
The basic principles of science and a skeptic point of view is good. But, you are not dealing with the root of the problem. You are telling me that we don't create our own reality, than the opposite of that is someone else or something else controls or guides it, what a contradiction.
I am not prophesizing anything, or saying anything new indeed. Quit trying to blow me off like its just this or that, I am none of the above. Logical fallicies is only one way of thinking! Believe me there are many, good and bad.
How hard would it be to filter out information if you own virtually all forms of communicaiton? Please explain this to me. The lack of 'your type' of physical evidence should not mean lack of thinking. I do not mind this little baby bashing, because I am not concerned what people think of me.
Saying that information cannot be filtered by the government is really not factual either. How is it? |
|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2005 : 20:37:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
HYBRID:
You see, we create our own reality, first in our minds, and then externally.
So why then would you care if some of us are skeptical of the idea that aliens from other worlds are actively visiting us? Didn't you create us to be this way? If the above quote is true, than it is the only thing that is true. All other ideas would have equal value. And if all ideas have equal value, created by our beliefs, than no ideas have any value at all.
You totally missed my point. Reality is only as real as your, my or anybody else's mind will accept.
No amount of evidence will convice a person who is not going to make it a reality in their own mind as long as there physical senses will allow, period, I don't care who you are.
On the contrary, if all ideas are valuable, which this is true to a degree, than all ideas would be valuable, not all mediocre. I see it as half full, others half empty, and that what free will and thinking is all about my friend.
As skeptics we use tools to evaluate claims of fact. We are curious and want to know what value, if any, notions like the possibility that aliens are visiting us have. What is the evidence for that, we ask? You will not need those tools however, since we are your creation. You have created your reality and we are in it…
No that is just a smart A#@ comment. If you will only accept as fact or evidence what you see with your physical senses, then you will be fooled again. There are plenty of things that our physical senses cannot detect, and did not detect until 'modern' technology.
Welcome to SFN Hybrid.
How cute, this did not mean much though.
My reply goes to the heart of post modernist thinking. If you think my comment on the absurdity of statements like “we create our own reality,” is simply being cute and does not mean much, there is not much I can do about that. But again, if you actually believe that we create our reality, why on earth does it matter to you what we think?
I really hope you don't think that little comment summed up all of post modern thinking. That's like saying you could read an entire dictionary in an hour, won't happen. It matters what i think because we are all human beings capable of infinite thought processes, which means, to a degree, we all think at some point does matter.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
