|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:13:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
Well scientists struggle with the same problems - is light a particle or a wave? Do we mock them for being self-contradictory? |
How little understanding you have, Gary. Non-scientists struggle with that question. Scientists understand that light is a particle and a wave. And once you get a grip on the math, you would see that it's not self-contradictory.| Do we mock creation for being too complex for our tiny minds? |
If you wish to wallow in self-pity, you go right ahead. I, instead, will marvel at our capacity for understanding, and our endless curiosity. Our ability to move towards the apparent truth once we have a pragmatic bedrock upon which to stand, and which you deny exists. The biggest irony of them all, Gary, is that while you preach in favor of progress through open-mindedness and higher planes of existence, the premises on which you base your faith would, if widely accepted, undermine the knowledge we've attained in favor of intellectual barbarism where the content of one's argument doesn't matter, only the strength with which you make the argument matters. Yes, Gary, your ideals will lead directly to the "mind control" you so despise, but you refuse to entertain that possibility.| In a way, by becoming skeptics, we are mocking creation and ourselves. |
Once again, that is because you've got no clue as to what a skeptic is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:15:30 [Permalink]
|
| Things exist beyond the space time continuum. Including the knowledge of past lives. These things can't be tested by any conventional means - do we, therefore, conclude these things don't exist? |
Pretty much.
And even if they were to exist, the fact is that they have no effects on our universe.
If they had, we could test them, even indirectly, by 'conventional means'. For example, we do not test gravity directly, rather, we look at its effects on the various bodies of interest...
The fact that they have no effect on our universe, as I was saying, pretty much signify that their existence is meaningless for us. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:15:59 [Permalink]
|
The only question that remains is who is on the higher level now, Gary? You or us? The way you've set yourself up, you can't possibly know without redefining the meanings of every concept required to make the decision, at which point you invalidate your claim that you have attained objectivity.
|
Let's put it this way, who is being more open-minded and operating under fewer self-imposed and/or externally imposed restrictions which have no validity whatsoever? |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:22:43 [Permalink]
|
Scientists understand that light is a particle and a wave.
|
Not at one and the same time, though - but only on separate occasions when it suits their purposes. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:26:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
| Tell me how receptive you are to the possibility that you are an evil snowmobile, Gary. |
Hell, yes! I even like the idea. Even if I request it be put on my tombstone it still doesn't make it true. |
It's that "it still doesn't make it true" phrase that indicates that you reject the notion that you are an evil snowmobile. Yet you claim to "like the idea." Clearly you are saying that there is a difference between reality and what we wish reality to be. But you've said that all assertions will be shown to be false at some sufficiently high state of consciousness, so why would you ever have a tombstone, Gary?
You also wrote:| evil snowmobile = devil's advocate |
See, there you go again, redefining terms at will to suit your egoistic, delusional needs.| In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure. |
Not according to your position on testing, Gary. That process could only be used to test the quality of the arguers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:31:03 [Permalink]
|
Not according to your position on testing, Gary. That process could only be used to test the quality of the arguers.
|
Indeed this is so - so far the arguers have indulged in far too many assumptions and displayed a curious lack of open-mindedness. |
| Edited by - Gary 7.1 on 08/28/2008 21:36:57 |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:35:46 [Permalink]
|
It's that "it still doesn't make it true" phrase that indicates that you reject the notion that you are an evil snowmobile. Yet you claim to "like the idea." Clearly you are saying that there is a difference between reality and what we wish reality to be. But you've said that all assertions will be shown to be false at some sufficiently high state of consciousness, so why would you ever have a tombstone, Gary?
|
It merely indicates that I might think that you might think I really am an evil snowmobile.
It does NOT indicate that I reject the notion that I am an evil snowmobile. You have made a fatal error.
You clearly lack objectivity and clarity in your reasoning. |
| Edited by - Gary 7.1 on 08/28/2008 21:36:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:38:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
| The only question that remains is who is on the higher level now, Gary? You or us? The way you've set yourself up, you can't possibly know without redefining the meanings of every concept required to make the decision, at which point you invalidate your claim that you have attained objectivity. |
Let's put it this way, who is being more open-minded and operating under fewer self-imposed and/or externally imposed restrictions which have no validity whatsoever? |
Now you're just showing off your bigotry, Gary. You clearly are operating under lots of self-imposed restrictions as to what the word "skeptic" means - so much so that you reject anyone else's meaning. You're operating out of a self-imposed prison of paranoia, through the bars of which all you can see are people trying to control your mind.
You also wrote:| Scientists understand that light is a particle and a wave. |
Not at one and the same time, though - but only on separate occasions when it suits their purposes. |
There's that bigotry again, with you substituting your own meaning for other people's words, just because you don't want to be wrong. A photon is both a particle and a wave at all times, Gary. The fact that you deny that reality just shows how little of reality you're willing to accept, instead favoring some bizarre totalitarian persecution fantasy wherein scientists and other experts are out to get you.
You are, essentially, arguing that you aren't smart enough to cope with the reality that science describes (you've basically equated science with magic and propaganda, both), and demonstrating that you are so arrogant that you think that what you think is reality really is reality. I think you're wrong on both counts, but you don't seem to be receptive to that possibility. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:41:32 [Permalink]
|
You also wrote:| evil snowmobile = devil's advocate |
See, there you go again, redefining terms at will to suit your egoistic, delusional needs.
|
I was making an analogy - the delusional and egoistical aspect of your response comes only from your biased and prejudiced assumptions and preconceptions. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:47:46 [Permalink]
|
You are, essentially, arguing that you aren't smart enough to cope with the reality that science describes (you've basically equated science with magic and propaganda, both), and demonstrating that you are so arrogant that you think that what you think is reality really is reality. I think you're wrong on both counts, but you don't seem to be receptive to that possibility.
|
I'm saying scientists are charlatans who talk utter nonsense - they simply do not understand things beyond their limited intelligence, experience and understanding. It's an arrogant statement, but there, I've said it!
You don't think I'm receptive to all possibilities? Why?
Do you also assume I always believe what I say?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:54:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
Indeed this is so - so far the arguers have indulged in far too many assumptions and displayed a curious lack of open-mindedness. |
And also this:It merely indicates that I might think that you might think I really am an evil snowmobile.
It does NOT indicate that I reject the notion that I am an evil snowmobile. You have made a fatal error.
You clearly lack objectivity and clarity in your reasoning. |
And also this:| I was making an analogy - the delusional and egoistical aspect of your response comes only from your biased and prejudiced assumptions and preconceptions. |
All of the above is nothing more than you, Gary, falling back upon Big Brother's method of propgandistic argumentation, where black is white and we've always been at war with East Asia.
The assumption I've used in arguing against most of your arguments, Gary, is that what you've claimed is true. What you see as delusional, egoistical, biased and prejudice must only be a reflection of your own delusion, ego, bias and bigotry.
You simply refuse to acknowledge that under the rules you have imposed for yourself, you cannot possibly know whether I'm the one at a higher state of consciousness than you (because if only you could attain a higher state yourself, you would see your previous folly for what it was). Instead, your ego demands that you are the more-enlightened one, and closes your mind to any other possibilities.
All of your other statements follow from that massively hypocritical position. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 21:55:30 [Permalink]
|
Gary:
Do you also assume I always believe what I say? |
For your sake, I hope not... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 22:01:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
| You are, essentially, arguing that you aren't smart enough to cope with the reality that science describes (you've basically equated science with magic and propaganda, both), and demonstrating that you are so arrogant that you think that what you think is reality really is reality. I think you're wrong on both counts, but you don't seem to be receptive to that possibility. |
I'm saying scientists are charlatans who talk utter nonsense - they simply do not understand things beyond their limited intelligence, experience and understanding. It's an arrogant statement, but there, I've said it! |
That's exactly what I said, isn't it?| You don't think I'm receptive to all possibilities? Why? |
Haven't I described in detail over the last dozen or so posts exactly why you exhibit a massive refusal to be receptive to the possibility that you're wrong? A possibility that you must acknowledge because your arguments demand that there be no objective reality?| Do you also assume I always believe what I say? |
Ah, now you're suggesting that you're a liar and paranoid.
Or, you're about to pull the standard trick for 11-year-olds on the Web, and post something like "I was only foolin', and I got you guys! Neener-neener-neener!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 22:04:07 [Permalink]
|
A photon is both a particle and a wave at all times, Gary. The fact that you deny that reality just shows how little of reality you're willing to accept, instead favoring some bizarre totalitarian persecution fantasy wherein scientists and other experts are out to get you.
|
Being a wave and particle at the same time is a paradox.
A paradox only occurs when we have a failure to see the truth of the situation.
A photon is a wave and a particle at all times is very reminiscent of Orwellian mind control jargon. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 22:15:48 [Permalink]
|
Ah, now you're suggesting that you're a liar and paranoid.
|
Expressing ideas while considering possibilities and theories we may not believe is hardly the same as lying.
Considering the possibility of mind control and questioning dictatorial controls and restrictions in no way indicates paranoia. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Shirley Maclaine & Kevin Ryerson
