quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

How hard would it be to filter out information if you own virtually all forms of communicaiton? Please explain this to me.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Saying that information cannot be filtered by the government is really not factual either. How is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Saying that information cannot be filtered by the government is really not factual either. How is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

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 said the comment did not mean much because ultimately it didn't. I thought it was cute.
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?

Uhh, buddy, I don't think I could convince you of anything, and I don't want to, I am merely asking questions to get you to think. You are saying I believe in something, What have I really said I beleive or tried to get you to believe?[/size=1]

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*

When did I say the government was covering it all up? I said through theAt what point did I say any of this, or insenuated any of that what you are talking about? Woo Woo claim, There you go generalizing a mass amount of information on unrelated and related subjects with a Woo Woo claim, very scientific. media and eduaction. It is not all covered up, go read some info. Do your own research. I have done mine, do yours.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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

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 said the comment did not mean much because ultimately it didn't. I thought it was cute.

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?

Uhh, buddy, I don't think I could convince you of anything, and I don't want to, I am merely asking questions to get you to think. You are saying I believe in something, What have I really said I beleive or tried to get you to believe?

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*

At what point did I say any of this, or insenuated any of that what you are talking about? Woo Woo claim, There you go generalizing a mass amount of information on unrelated and related subjects with a Woo Woo claim, very scientific.

When did I say the government was covering it all up? I said through the media and eduaction. It is not all covered up, go read some info. Do your own research. I have done mine, do yours.

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.

---

Who was I trying to 'enlighten'? I am just a regular man with an opinion whether it is new or not, I really have not stated. I merely stated I was not a skeptic in the sense we all use it. But to me, saying you are a skeptic is a major generalization in itself.

My point is that you are a regular man also, and so are the rest of you or woman. And so are scientists and every other human on the planet. YOu taking there words completely at face velue all the time, is also indoctination. I deal with things at the root of the problem. Whether evidence exists in your mind or not, is irrelavent. Whether you would ecept it is another thing. The laugher you have left me with is appreciated also

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

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.

---

There are more than two possibilities. "Someone else" creates my reality is not the only alternative to "I" create my reality. One is that no one creates reality.

That was kind of a joke, but it WAS true, but lighten up, its just a discussion, its not NATO peackeeping!If No one creates reality, then realtiy does not exist, and that does not sound very smart now does it?

quote:

---

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.

---

Can you name one example of a good logical fallicy?

Again you missed the point of that. I was saying that there are good and bad ways of thinking. A logical fallicy, or determining one is a matter of opinion, and not necessarily put into a list of things to be governed over by people, because human thinking is beyond a piece of paper telling you how you should interpret an infinite of data on earth and in the cosmos. I think that will go over your head thoug maybe.

quote:

---

How hard would it be to filter out information if you own virtually all forms of communicaiton? Please explain this to me.

---

Who owns the internet? Are there any private book publishers? If all information is censored, how do you know what you know and how did you get permission to post on this site?

How hard would it? You still have not answered MY question. The Mass population does not use the internet as much as you think. You know, there is some po' folk out here who don't have a computer or computers. And not everyone spends nights surfing looking for these types of things. WE watch tv, read the newspaper, and magazines and radio, things that are filtered. Did you check out some of those websites I posted? Interesting info in there, but why bother..

quote:

---

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.

---

That's good, but so far no one has bashed you. They have been merely commenting upon the substance of your arguments.

Its not a verbal bash as much as intellectual, psychological, or just plain smart-allecy.

quote:

---

Saying that information cannot be filtered by the government is really not factual either. How is it?

---

No one said that. You seem to have this either/or problem. "Either the govenment cannot ever censor anything or the goverment does censor everything." How about we stop with these wild extremes, huh? Since it's pretty clear no one holds either opinion.

What wild extremes? I think you are tripping buddy. The government can filter anything they see fit. What could you do about it? Could you stop it? Hmm...

As a side note, you might want to read up on filthy's link just so you know why your arguments are not persuasive. You won't have to actually think different (honest), but you might be able to express your thoughts more clearly.

Persuasive? I am not in the persuading business my friend. I discuss. I question. Not just what I think is strange, everything! Something science, much like religion, stops you or can inhibit you from doing. Now what?

---

quote:

---

And so are scientists and every other human on the planet. YOu taking there words completely at face velue all the time, is also indoctination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

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.

---

Not so. Simply because we cannot create nor control reality does not mean that someone or some thing else is.

quote:

---

Again, a slight joke.

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.

---

Huh?

There are as many ways of thinking as there are sentient beings in existance.

quote:

---

Exacly!

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.

---

Again, huh?

Info is filtered all the time by everyone who puts it forth. It is the skeptics task to find the truth through the evidence, and we can be fooled, and too often are. But in time, we arrive at the best conclusion because we are always open to new information.

quote:

---

Says who? Who are we? You think of it as a collective unit. But if you were homeless with no money or no means to support yourself, lets see the collective unit then. New info how?

Saying that information cannot be filtered by the government is really not factual either. How is it?

---

Who said that? No one here, I'm sure.

Exactly, so info that exists may not be factual, if it is filtered. YOu need all of the info to be successful, and not just what you need to know. Am I the only one who gets this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawks

quote:

---

And so are scientists and every other human on the planet. YOu taking there words completely at face velue all the time, is also indoctination.

---

It seems that you have misunderstood science, and skepticism. Skeptics (and scientists which I here treat as one) do NOT take things at face value. Things are accepted because of the existing evidence. You somehow seem to imply that somehow that evidence is "filtered" and that we are therefore deceived. In certain instances it certainly is and has been. But until evidence of such manipulation is presented, a skeptic will stick with the evidence that does exist.

So you say information can be filtered, but we need to find evidence of it. Well, people who commit crimes always purposly leave evidence or confess to crimes everyday don't they. Yes, you do take things at face value.
If someone with marks behind his name tells you something, guaranteed you will take his word at face value, even if evidence exists that what he says maybe wrong.

Maybe this person has an agenda for himself, or from somewhere else. Point is how would you or any one know. You are going on the fact that he/she is a proffesional of his/her field and they know what they are talking about. You have no say so. Just like the preacher in the pull pit prophezing to the people about how he knows god. Ideas and what we consider 'fact' at the times always have and do change.
What if one wrong person made one mistake, and all of one theory or what have you is all baloney, and always was.

---

quote:

---

Who said that? No one here, I'm sure.

Exactly, so info that exists may not be factual, if it is filtered. YOu need all of the info to be successful, and not just what you need to know. Am I the only one who gets this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawks

quote:

---

And so are scientists and every other human on the planet. YOu taking there words completely at face velue all the time, is also indoctination.

---

It seems that you have misunderstood science, and skepticism. Skeptics (and scientists which I here treat as one) do NOT take things at face value. Things are accepted because of the existing evidence. You somehow seem to imply that somehow that evidence is "filtered" and that we are therefore deceived. In certain instances it certainly is and has been. But until evidence of such manipulation is presented, a skeptic will stick with the evidence that does exist.

So you say information can be filtered, but we need to find evidence of it. Well, people who commit crimes always purposly leave evidence or confess to crimes everyday don't they. Yes, you do take things at face value.
If someone with marks behind his name tells you something, guaranteed you will take his word at face value, even if evidence exists that what he says maybe wrong. [/size=6]
Maybe this person has an agenda for himself, or from somewhere else. Point is how would you or any one know. You are going on the fact that he/she is a proffesional of his/her field and they know what they are talking about. You have no say so. Just like the preacher in the pull pit prophezing to the people about how he knows god. Ideas and what we consider 'fact' at the times always have and do change.
What if one wrong person made one mistake, and all of one theory or what have you is all baloney, and always was.

---

---

quote:

---

Hybrid:
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.

---

quote:

---

So you say information can be filtered, but we need to find evidence of it. Well, people who commit crimes always purposly leave evidence or confess to crimes everyday don't they. Yes, you do take things at face value.

---

quote:

---

If someone with marks behind his name tells you something, guaranteed you will take his word at face value, even if evidence exists that what he says maybe wrong. [/size=6]

---

quote:

---

Maybe this person has an agenda for himself, or from somewhere else. Point is how would you or any one know. You are going on the fact that he/she is a proffesional of his/her field and they know what they are talking about. You have no say so. Just like the preacher in the pull pit prophezing to the people about how he knows god. Ideas and what we consider 'fact' at the times always have and do change.
What if one wrong person made one mistake, and all of one theory or what have you is all baloney, and always was.

---