You left out the seeming fact every nanosecond of every waking minute and on some level while sleeping and/or unconscious more things are going on around you than your brain can handle so you filter all input by your life experience up to thank point. If you don't see, smell, taste, hear or feel something it may not be because it didn't occur but just that your reality tunnel (meme) prevented you. Your reality is yours alone not anyone else's. between any 2 life forms consensus may never be 100%
But Wilhelm Röntgen was a fraud ? Is that what kmsoileau is talking about ? By the way it's hilarious when he plays the "he/she/it's" card, or "gullible idiot" and want to ZJ take him seriously. Zinnia was more manly in this so here we goes stronger words... (next card will be "angry atheists" maybe, maybe not. Period).
Don't worry sweetheart your words are perfectly intelligible, i was just ironic with your appetite for sophism. I thought it was clear. God Bless the X-Rays and your angels or the ones of your neighbor.
Since you can't see X-rays with your eyes, and you don't have an X-ray detector, how do you know X-rays exist? Because someone with experience with X-rays told you, and you believed them. So does this mean you're a gullible idiot for believing them?
@ZJemptv A procedure that might verify a belief is not a basis for belief. Since you have never personally built an X-ray detector, you believe in X-rays because of the testimony of others. I repeat, does this make you a gullible idiot?
@ZJemptv You presented a procedure that MIGHT verify your belief in X-rays, a procedure that you have not ACTUALLY carried out. So you believe in X-rays on the word of another. You gullible fool. LOL
@ZJemptv So I take it you agree that you are a gullible idiot to believe in X-rays without having built and operated an X-ray detector? Glad we got that sorted.
@kmsoileau There's no need to believe anything. Our body of scientific knowledge can be verified, independently, by anyone who chooses to do so. In this case you've transposed the word "belief" over the word "trust". I trust a specific body of knowledge because it's been vetted. This doesn't rule out the possibility that the work will be enhanced in the future, or even disproved as we gain more knowledge. Here's an exercise for you: change "belief" for "trust" and re-read your argument.
@dagda825 "Our body of scientific knowledge can be verified, independently, by anyone who chooses to do so." You believe this, but have no proof of this.
It's even more comprehensible and complex. Before sensory stimuli from the sense organs reaches the brain they pass thru the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes are the seat of our socio-cultural conditioning. (see 'Sculptured World' hypothosis) So we are actually taught how to perceive! Therefore all our perceptions, hallucinations and is well known our dreams are culture-specific. we see what we taught to believe. eg People in India see 'deva-s' not angels.
You're the closest thing to god I've ever see on youtube, or ever, if you catch my drift. If god were reason of course, which means I called you intelligent.
YOU ARE AN ANGEL ZINNIA YOUR JUST TOO AWSOME!!! :D and you are beutiful :) yes i am a guy and am gay but not gay for Zinnia because i like FAT guys :D
ok so i agree with you that marriage is the right of any human being regardless of sexual orientation. I do not, however, agree with you when you state that spiritual experiences in general are bogus. Of course, there have undoubtedly been cases where people have misinterpreted an ordinary event to be extraordinary, but that does not mean that all experiences are. If you would like a discussion on the matter, please feel free to message me. I respect both you and your opinions immensely.
Musing on the idea that some 'supernatural' beings may exist, that could choose wether it could be seen or not.
If they could be proven to exist, it still couldn't be proven as to what they are exactly, how do you know your seeing angels and not fairies or jinn?
part1 and what about: The energy can't cease just transform? How do you explain that my sister had always nightmares in our old house, and the house was build as a compensation for a family whose son was hit and killed by a wagon. Btw she didn't know this when she had these nightmares, only after we moved out. My father said another story...in a village there was a house in which the dishes always fell or rather flied out on the ground. In front of this house was a abandoned house with a well.
The angels are there! You just gotta have faith, and it'll turn on your 'faith eyes'! Angels can only be seen by 'faith eyes', because they're only visible in the 'faith spectrum' of light! Open your 'eyes' and see the spiritual!
tIs so sad, it either there are doucebags are christians or atheists. Quit being prejudice against homosexuality. And quite judging about whether Z is a man or a woman. if doesnt matter, especially in this case. This is an intelligent human being making a video. Lay off.
@BrooklynRagtag i think its disgusting and ridicoulus to try to change the gender only because you have a weird mind , i dont mind if you do that early on and when you really look like a woman afterwards but this tranny looks like shit .... and she is making us atheists look like freaks ... she/it should stop to make videos about religion since religious people will think all atheists are shemales and freaks and so on
@chabi3000 Wow. I think the only atheist making us look bad is you. If gender ambiguity makes you uncomfortable, that is your own problem. You sound just as bigoted as the Christian Fundamentalists.
@chabi3000 rofl dude, you need to chill. it's her choice what she wants to look like, who she sleeps with etc. if you have a problem with her saying what she says, don't watch it. she has her own opinions, she's allowed to express herself like anyone else. you hating her for that is the same as hating a jew because he has money or a black guy because his skin is darker than yours. if most atheists are like you, i think i'm gonna go shave my head an become a Buddhist monk.
@chabi3000 rofl dude, you need to chill. it's her choice what she wants to look like, who she sleeps with etc. if you have a problem with her saying what she says, don't watch it. she has her own opinions, she's allowed to express herself like anyone else. you hating her for that is the same as hating a jew because he has money or a black guy because his skin is darker than yours. if most atheists are like you, i think i'm gonna go shave my head an become a Buddhist monk.
I remember my kindergarten teacher told me that God had to exist, because she had heard her grandmother speak to her after her death. Even then, I thought that was a bit far-fetched. ^_^
The main problem is I think with always trying to find an authority figure who will tell us what to do and what's right or wrong. It's simply childish. Remember the story of Abraham? Well, if angels exist (they may exist, i cant confirm or deny that) and they'd tell me things like "kill your mother" or "rape that little baby there and slit its throat" I WOULDN'T DO IT because I dont want to and I know its not right. Whoever wants me do it, I wont!
He/She just likes attention. He/She just likes to annoy religious people by his/her annoying voice and rediculous arguments LOL Sounds like He/She is just desperate to get that attention so he/she is trying too hard! I even think he/she annoys atheists!!! LOL
im not saying that you are wrong and that you are insinuating this, now i watched your video about faith and this video make me think even harder about how you seem to be insinuating that everyone who has faith is unintelligent, i am wiccan and have had some very unexplainable experiences, perceiving entities i believe to be spirits and my goddesses and gods , as with the sensing of energy now im not trying to disprove you or anything im still a little unclear about how my personal
Very thorough... the drug your brain produces to make you dream (DMT) is the same drug that is released just before you die or have a near death experience. It's like a therapy drug your brain produces all on its own. But that's just idiot science talk. It's more likely that you really saw angels because there couldn't be any other explanation.
More importantly even if the Angels were real that still wouldnt justify marital discrimination. Geez if you spend all that time explaining how hallucanations happen and neglect to address the moral shortcomings of their argument ppl might get the impression that somehow seeing Angels or hearing a demand from God automatically overides universal morality and justifies anything no matter how wrong
You forgot to mention bipolar disorder. I saw one sufferer in Stephen Fry's excellent documentary on bipolars who claimed to see angels when on the 'up' side.
Well, I don't see why an Angel can't limit themselves to being localized. I haven't had an experience like that, but how would I ever know it didn't happen. I find myself skeptical about these things as well.
I have, in fact, seen my own soul and God himself... while on mushrooms. But this obviously doesn't prove that either actually exist. That's bullshit. I'm not going to trust a strong drug experience, over my everyday experiences. It's much more likely i was hallucinating because of drugs than that my everyday life is tricking me to believe falsely about reality.
@ZJemptv I honestly think you are being uncritical and biased towards atheism. no matter how self-evident something is, you always have to go back "to the things themselves" as how Husserl had put it.
@ZJemptv Sweetheart Rosie Jones, I wouldn't mind having a dream/hallucination where you are sitting by me and I have my arm draped over your shoulder and are discussing something interesting. Because you are so lovable.
That has to be about the best explination that i have ever heard. True and much more convincing than "It is so because it was written almost 2 milennia ago by desert wayferers who were trying to explain the unknown. :-)" i am REALLY curious as to what your IQ is.
squat, then breath in through you nose and out through your mouth slowly 30 times, after youve done that, stand up realy quickly, imideatly grip your nose with your fingers and try to blow as hard as you can out your nose while not releasing air through your nose or mouth, you will pass out for 30 seconds and halucinate
Just shut the hell up! That's my argument. Don't make everything so dam complicated. God created us all in the way he wanted, no gays. Easy enough to explain in one sentence. Your so annoying.
I can still see their username if we just turn annotations off. On the bottom right, you can click to turn it off on the pop out menu when you hover your mouse over it. You should've covered it before posting the video.
I don't understand the connection at all between gay marriage and visions of angels. Whether or not they actually saw spirits is irrelevant; but what is their connection between seeing angels and immediately deciding that means homosexuality is wrong?
Amanda - It probably is not productive to attempt to apply logic behind such outlandish arguments. I suppose that's just me - I like to poke holes in debates.
I just loooooove the way you casually put the most horrifying ideas right out there. "You would not be able to avoid noticing something like this because it would destroy the planet." Said just as casually as "This is due to pressure waves which are transmitted through the air."
I've been watching your videos all night, and when you started talking about psychology (especially sensory perception and false memory), it was the best thing ever. I wanted to reach through the screen and kiss those lips.
All we have is sensory experience. To suggest that the content of an experience is more valid or real because it is shared has no basis outside of scientific ideology. This notion appeals to the scientific principles of observability and repeatability. The importance of these two principles is an unquestioned assumption within science. Also as a side note, cults and societies are fantastic at getting a lot of people at once to have the same "false" experience. good video.
I would contend that this "unquestioned assumption" is actually justified, and confirmed, by centuries of genuinely useful and productive results from scientific observation that have helped us to improve and refine our understanding of the world. I have to ask, what has come of working from contrary assumptions, or the view that observation and repeatability are irrelevant?
You're arguing that repeatability and observability are justifiable principles because we have repeatedly observed this to be so? That seems circular. I haven't suggested that scientific method hasn't been helpful to us. Many people find religion helpful even though religious beliefs are also irrational.Can you give me an argument for the rationality of scientific method/principles that isn't circular(reliant on scientific principles as justification)?
What exactly would the validity of the assumptions of science be proven by (or disproven by, at that), if confirmation (or disconfirmation) by repeated observation is somehow off-limits? What other modes of demonstrating something to be valid are acceptable, if that's ruled out? And how would you make an argument that scientific principles are unsound? Science works. Claiming that we shouldn't use the fact that it works as an argument for its validity doesn't change the fact that it works.
On the contrary, your statement that "Science works" isn't always true. Science does not always work and in fact, it is always changing. For example - earth being the center of the universe.
On the contrary, facts and productive results do not necessarily always explain everything even if there are thousands of studies or research. For example, there have been many studies suggesting that girls can't do well in math. Now there are many studies showing the reverse.
The important feature of science is that it is self-correcting. What was geocentrism disproven by? More science. You say "it is always changing" as if that were a bad thing, when in fact that is the entire point of science. What would you consider preferable -- maintaining one dogmatic belief in the face of contrary evidence? The fact that science is a work in progress does not diminish the fact that real progress has been made using science. So what do you consider superior to science, then?
Actually, if you looked carefully at what I had written, no where is there a negative connotation whatsoever. Hence, you are only assuming.
I never refuted that real progress has been made. If you read the my statement "...isn't always true" - this means that it may or may not be true not entirely one or the other.
As to address your question of that which is superior to science, there really is no clear and absolute answer. Personally, as someone who has worked with researchers, you can have two contradictory theories proven. Analogously, I like to think of it as a psychologist testifying for the prosecution versus another psychologist testifying for the defense - two very different opinions - will be up to the jury to decide for themselves.
Scientific theories never really get "proven". They get refined and updated (and sometimes altogether disproven). It is possible for there to be two contradicting hypotheses that adequately explain a phenomenon both without extraneous assumptions, and this is called underdetermination. There isn't enough information to choose between them.
Psychological testimonies are expert opinions of individuals, which is nothing at all like the scientific process.
@ZJemptv religion is also a work in progress, mind you. In Catholicism, there is a Church that tries to interpret what is called "the signs of the times".
u guys should all be quiet. u call your self Christians when u swear at this man for being gay? i thought god said help people, not mock them. and leave him alone and enjoy his speeches. in his opinion, he likes guys. cant change that. what if percentage of straight people turn gay? u r straight and people make fun of u for that? not so good is it?
When I am dreaming, I am perfectly aware that I am doing so. I can wake myself up at any time given that I want to. So, I suggest that all of you religious fanatics wake up any day now...
Regarding the comment displayed at the beginning:
Who the hell types that out and thinks "Yeah, that's what I mean. Sounds good"? How dumb do you have to be to think that's an intelligent or remotely appropriate thing to say?
As someone who has worked in a psychiatric clinic, I know that many of what we call "Hallucinations" can not up to this day be 100% proven to be wrong. We assume and do test that help us a little bit, which is good, but never the less- we are still not able to either prove if supernatural beings exist OR not.
If as you say, our minds are capable of not always "seeing" right, who can proof that we are "seeing" or not "seeing" right when it comes to supernatural beings? Maybe what we call a "Hallucination" is real, but we cant "see" what we "see"? (does that make sense?)
There are thousand of stories, not only by people with religious views, but also scientology, which craft, satanists, people with no religious views (at least before they saw a "supernatural being"). Relying on only a few views, is not always very beneficial, check out the thousands of different stories you can find in internet.
I heard of stories of people in cars at night, and a "man" stopped them and they wondered why. In that moment a train passed right in front of them. if they hadn't stop, all incl. kids would of been dead. The "man" after that disappeared in front of their eyes.
I once was sick lying in bed, skipped school. Near evening I felt like I saw an angel. It came twards my bed, touched my stomach and disappeared. The weird part about it, was that immediately after that I felt better, got out of bed and went shopping.
the only problem is that you're using logic to refute something fundamentally illogical. thanks for trying, but if people will believe what they want to believe regardless of whether it makes sense.
okay, then the situaton falls directly back to the onset of discovery?
two variants of the thought eperiment.
1: we hae already discovered it.
all we wuld need to do is test the place in the brain(name escapes at the moment) to see how this color interprataton is done and chemicly change it with a drug.
smae way it is theorized to cure known neural color blindness as opposed to optical color blindness which is a defect in the eye.
It's difficult to continue this conversation if you don't post your responses as replies to me
In your answer I see only one of the two varients you indicated, perhaps the second reply was lost. Suffice to say, responding to the premise "how do we discover it" with "we already did" is not acceptible.
The dilemma is how are we supposed to know that this one man is right and we all see things wrong? Even if we COULD investigate, then prove it in order to then be convinced, why would we try?
several visual tests and if he is able to see something better than others can then his sight is benificial to ours, so his is more correct as he sees more detail then us.
This is going to sidetrack the debate somewhat, and I am perhaps being overly contentious but I'll just make this point anyway.
If you see the colours red and green reversed (regardless of which way round is "real") your "detail" is going to remain exactly the same. We're not talking about who has the most superior eyesight, we're talking about which is the truth. This point has already been established more or less when we addressed the fact that the interpretation will remain the same.
You know what? I WAS being too contentious, let's forget that and just assume, for sake of argument, that there's some way to prove that our sight is wrong. What means we use is neither here nor there.
The defining question is this, how do we DISCOVER this in the first place? What's the motivation to develop the technology to prove something that you've absolutely no reason to believe? If this man really existed, and told you this truth, would you honestly take it seriously? Would ANYONE?
Which leads me finally to the point of my argument. In fact, I could have made this point from the moment you responded with the suggestion that we try to prove the truth.
In order to prove something we first must create the theory, this is basic scientific methodology. First the theory, then the search for evidence. But there is an even more basic, preliminary step; accepting it as valid enough to even consider as a theory.
I'm hoping that by now the method to my madness is emerging.
You see, there IS relevance to this example, a very poignant one.
The fact is, this hypothetical man is *not* delusional, he is perfectly sane and experiences no hallucinations, yet he sees something nobody else can see. This is an obvious reconstruction of ESP designed to sound more realistic to the scientific ear.
I presented the hypothetical case that he is actually right and we are wrong in order to provoke your imagination into conceiving how we might react; your response was telling.
Even after the question had been clarified you struggled to answer. At first merely restating it. Then you jump straight to after we proved it and how we adapt, or to us proving it AFTER accepting it.
ZJ said it himself: Let me explain how sensory perception works.
Both yours and his comments betray a bias against the idea that these events are real, concordantly using science not as a tool for proving truth, but as an convenient reservoir of data you can exploit to validate your beliefs.
Don't take this as a personal criticizm, if anything take it in your scientific stride, after all we are all fallible and a good critic isn't afraid of being wrong.
My point is, you couldn't answer my hypothesis because you don't see HOW it would be possible for this one man to be believed. The simple fact is, he would not.
But how does this equate to "angel sightings"? Sufficed to say, my case is this: Whoever said that these things are seen with the regular senses in the first place?
You said that if my hypothetical situation were to occur, we would need to develop or utilize some form of technology to prove it. The suggestions you made about what technology we should use were all flawed, but that's ok, you're not a scientist so it's perfectly acceptible for you not to have all the answers.
In order to prove it we need people who DO know what they are doing to develop NEW technology to do so. We need new SCIENCE to prove new CONCEPTS. Do you understand what I am saying?
This means that using established science to attack a theory that doesn't even have a hypothesized explanation is redundant.
For example, if we tried to prove that he was wrong by explaining that things appear green because when light hits them, only the green wavelengths are reflected and the rest absorbed, this is a logical fallacy, as it depends on the assumption that green IS green. Ratherlike debunking angel sightings by presuming that photons had to hit the angel to make it visible. ;-)
If you don't know how something works, you can't disprove it just by pointing out how current science does not support it.
By that logic, planes could be seen to somehow defy gravity. Only when you understand, even rudementrily how planes work do you grasp their true relationship to gravity.
By the same token we cannot discount angel sightings because our current understanding of senses would seem to preclude the possibility. If we don't understand a science, we cannot criticize it.
so, lets really look here, science is in essense a processes of discovery, and not a colection pool of facts, this, okay, i do some times, but this in no wy validates the other supposed item, that he is correct, nor does it prov that the angel is correct.
so, lets truly put this toward analytical view and put it under scrutiny okay?
I appreciate you taking the time to consider my points, a lesser person may have just dismissed me out of hand.
Unfortunately your first instinct is classic of the psuedo-skeptically trained, you see, immediately after considering my points you instinctually fall back onto a strawman argument.
I have been very careful with my wording, as I always am, and you will find when looking back over my posts that I never once stated that I believe or in anyway try to validate these angel sightings.
You see, my purpose here was not to propose a belief but to challenge YOURS, to put your preconceptions under the spotlight. I already said, several posts back, that YOU can't be expected to prove scientifically that these things are false. Do you remember why I did this?
The point I was making is that we need to get those who DO know what they are doing, to find the truth for us. To do that they must first be open to the concept in the first place. But I never said I was one of these people.
And this is all too often the reaction that those who DO experience these things get. "If what you saw is true, prove it." But these people are not trained scientists, demanding fully documented proof from them is like stopping someone in the street and demanding that they prove they have emotions. They can't, and even if they could, why should they?
My inability to prove how something is true does not in any way impact the fact that it is *possible*. Which is all I wanted you to consider.
The critical thing to remember is that lack of proof doesn't equal disproof, after all I just proved that we ALL could be colour blind because you had a lack of proof to the contrary.
You see it is easy to refute the notion that your assumptions are flawed by just challenging the opposing theory. But even if that theory IS wrong, even if you ARE right, that doesn't change the fact that your assumptions are flawed. And if they are, how can you ever be certain, that your theory IS right...?
All I wanted to do was encourage you to take a closer look at those assumptions. Maybe there is no proof that these things ARE real, but to come to the conclusion that they AREN'T based on this is not good skepticism or good science.
I just wanted you to understand that your belief that these things aren't real is just that; a belief. Every bit as superstitious and personal as the belief in god or anything spiritual. To prove the truth, we must be willing to discover it... WHATEVER it may be.
Now, onto your points. I concede that I would no sooner pour acid into my shoes than a true scientist would risk time, resources and reputation trying to study matters considered paranormal. This is an excellent point you made, and it backs my position perfectly.
This is exactly WHY these matters have not been given the due time and consideration they deserve, which is WHY people like you are ingrained with the belief that such things are "proven wrong". It's understandable, but still a fact.
I won't bother with the "filter colours" point because A, it doesn't really make sense, and B, it's academic as you already made the concession I needed from the scenario.
Doubt is the basic tenant of all scientific methodology, but we all too often forget that it must be applied universally. We have to doubt our own preconceptions as much as each other's. There are other explanations for these things, but the same can be said of anything. What matters is the willingness to consider them all.
okay, then lets slightly switch over to something else that i am sure you can understand.
there is a fairly famous philosopher(russel?)
who had this summed up well, he was a cosmic teapot agnostic.
though he did never prove or disprove there is a teapot, he had no reason to believe it was there.this is why he made the argument, because he believed it to not exist.
your point of the man on the street not being able to prove his emotions, admitadly, this is a good point, but i also fidn it odd, that you think that no one educated in either science or philosophy has seen them and is willing to debate the issue.
i am a teapot, shoe fairy, santa clause, and angel agnostic, with no reason to believe otherwise.
especially since the evidence mosr aligns with dillusional mind oddities than an actual existence?
You left out the seeming fact every nanosecond of every waking minute and on some level while sleeping and/or unconscious more things are going on around you than your brain can handle so you filter all input by your life experience up to thank point. If you don't see, smell, taste, hear or feel something it may not be because it didn't occur but just that your reality tunnel (meme) prevented you. Your reality is yours alone not anyone else's. between any 2 life forms consensus may never be 100%
moldrad 3 days ago
@moldrad damn spell check or ham handed typing I meant "up to that point"
moldrad 3 days ago
But Wilhelm Röntgen was a fraud ? Is that what kmsoileau is talking about ? By the way it's hilarious when he plays the "he/she/it's" card, or "gullible idiot" and want to ZJ take him seriously. Zinnia was more manly in this so here we goes stronger words... (next card will be "angry atheists" maybe, maybe not. Period).
Hellfinky 2 months ago
@Hellfinky " Is that what kmsoileau is talking about ?" No. Keep rereading what I wrote until you understand it.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau
Don't worry sweetheart your words are perfectly intelligible, i was just ironic with your appetite for sophism. I thought it was clear. God Bless the X-Rays and your angels or the ones of your neighbor.
Hellfinky 2 months ago
@Hellfinky If you can't be smart, you might as well be lamely amusing. Well done!
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau
I'm glad you enjoy my comment. I'll wait my 50's to be smart on the internet as your standards recommends. Can't wait !
Hellfinky 2 months ago
Since you can't see X-rays with your eyes, and you don't have an X-ray detector, how do you know X-rays exist? Because someone with experience with X-rays told you, and you believed them. So does this mean you're a gullible idiot for believing them?
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau "Since you can't see X-rays with your eyes, and you don't have an X-ray detector, how do you know X-rays exist?"
Step one: Construct X-ray detector.
ZJemptv 2 months ago 4
@ZJemptv A procedure that might verify a belief is not a basis for belief. Since you have never personally built an X-ray detector, you believe in X-rays because of the testimony of others. I repeat, does this make you a gullible idiot?
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau "A procedure that might verify a belief is not a basis for belief."
If verifying your beliefs isn't a basis for holding beliefs, you must live in a state of mental anarchy.
ZJemptv 2 months ago
@ZJemptv You presented a procedure that MIGHT verify your belief in X-rays, a procedure that you have not ACTUALLY carried out. So you believe in X-rays on the word of another. You gullible fool. LOL
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau Okay, get back to me when you find some angels that can X-ray things.
ZJemptv 2 months ago 4
@ZJemptv So I take it you agree that you are a gullible idiot to believe in X-rays without having built and operated an X-ray detector? Glad we got that sorted.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau lol you got pwned!
TMBrd89 2 months ago
@TMBrd89 I did? Last I checked, ZJ couldn't refute my argument that he's a gullible idiot for believing that X-rays exist.
kmsoileau 2 months ago
@kmsoileau Bud you got taken to the cleaners.
TMBrd89 2 months ago
@kmsoileau ..but they do exist. LOL.
IAmSuchANerdLol 2 months ago in playlist Religion
@kmsoileau There's no need to believe anything. Our body of scientific knowledge can be verified, independently, by anyone who chooses to do so. In this case you've transposed the word "belief" over the word "trust". I trust a specific body of knowledge because it's been vetted. This doesn't rule out the possibility that the work will be enhanced in the future, or even disproved as we gain more knowledge. Here's an exercise for you: change "belief" for "trust" and re-read your argument.
dagda825 1 month ago in playlist Religion
@dagda825 Doesn't the verb "trust" in your context mean "choose to believe without personally verifying"?
kmsoileau 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dagda825 "Our body of scientific knowledge can be verified, independently, by anyone who chooses to do so." You believe this, but have no proof of this.
kmsoileau 3 weeks ago
Have you started hormone treatment yet? You look beautiful.
karmasleeper 2 months ago
It's even more comprehensible and complex. Before sensory stimuli from the sense organs reaches the brain they pass thru the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes are the seat of our socio-cultural conditioning. (see 'Sculptured World' hypothosis) So we are actually taught how to perceive! Therefore all our perceptions, hallucinations and is well known our dreams are culture-specific. we see what we taught to believe. eg People in India see 'deva-s' not angels.
Antarblue 3 months ago
You're the closest thing to god I've ever see on youtube, or ever, if you catch my drift. If god were reason of course, which means I called you intelligent.
Cschive 5 months ago
YOU ARE AN ANGEL ZINNIA YOUR JUST TOO AWSOME!!! :D and you are beutiful :) yes i am a guy and am gay but not gay for Zinnia because i like FAT guys :D
DeathIIV 5 months ago
Excuse me, have you seen my stapler?
zEropoint68 7 months ago 6
@zEropoint68 is it red and makes a clicky sound? XD
cologist 4 months ago
ok so i agree with you that marriage is the right of any human being regardless of sexual orientation. I do not, however, agree with you when you state that spiritual experiences in general are bogus. Of course, there have undoubtedly been cases where people have misinterpreted an ordinary event to be extraordinary, but that does not mean that all experiences are. If you would like a discussion on the matter, please feel free to message me. I respect both you and your opinions immensely.
edoniw123 7 months ago
29 seconds later. Why in the world would i like to watch this?..
qaiex 7 months ago
@qaiex Why in the world would you waste precious time leaving a pointless comment?
Lurdanjo 7 months ago
"You would not be able to avoid noticing something like that. Because it would destroy the planet." lol
ana8woahhh 9 months ago
@Lemonz1989
Nothing makes me giggle more than a Christian parroting a Poe. :D
Anon11674 11 months ago
@Lemonz1989
Hehe. I've heard that one before.
I was wondering if I'd get any reactions to my random nonsense there. I can always hope some Christian will see it and try to use it. :P
Anon11674 11 months ago
Musing on the idea that some 'supernatural' beings may exist, that could choose wether it could be seen or not.
If they could be proven to exist, it still couldn't be proven as to what they are exactly, how do you know your seeing angels and not fairies or jinn?
MissMysterics 11 months ago
part2 my father heard there was a death-case related to the well... i guess you will explain all these thinks with science.
nrx006 11 months ago
part1 and what about: The energy can't cease just transform? How do you explain that my sister had always nightmares in our old house, and the house was build as a compensation for a family whose son was hit and killed by a wagon. Btw she didn't know this when she had these nightmares, only after we moved out. My father said another story...in a village there was a house in which the dishes always fell or rather flied out on the ground. In front of this house was a abandoned house with a well.
nrx006 11 months ago
The angels are there! You just gotta have faith, and it'll turn on your 'faith eyes'! Angels can only be seen by 'faith eyes', because they're only visible in the 'faith spectrum' of light! Open your 'eyes' and see the spiritual!
Anon11674 11 months ago
lol. I'm a girl, and you're probably prettier than I am. :)
ThumbprintTheatrics 11 months ago
I seem to be looking at an angel right now!
JPa311979 1 year ago
tIs so sad, it either there are doucebags are christians or atheists. Quit being prejudice against homosexuality. And quite judging about whether Z is a man or a woman. if doesnt matter, especially in this case. This is an intelligent human being making a video. Lay off.
WordsofHarmony 1 year ago
you are a shame for atheists ! go kill yourself ! i would join theists to kill you shemale piece of shit !
chabi3000 1 year ago
@chabi3000 What's wrong with you?
BrooklynRagtag 1 year ago 2
@BrooklynRagtag i think its disgusting and ridicoulus to try to change the gender only because you have a weird mind , i dont mind if you do that early on and when you really look like a woman afterwards but this tranny looks like shit .... and she is making us atheists look like freaks ... she/it should stop to make videos about religion since religious people will think all atheists are shemales and freaks and so on
chabi3000 1 year ago
@chabi3000 Wow. I think the only atheist making us look bad is you. If gender ambiguity makes you uncomfortable, that is your own problem. You sound just as bigoted as the Christian Fundamentalists.
BrooklynRagtag 1 year ago 2
@chabi3000 rofl dude, you need to chill. it's her choice what she wants to look like, who she sleeps with etc. if you have a problem with her saying what she says, don't watch it. she has her own opinions, she's allowed to express herself like anyone else. you hating her for that is the same as hating a jew because he has money or a black guy because his skin is darker than yours. if most atheists are like you, i think i'm gonna go shave my head an become a Buddhist monk.
iraepu 1 year ago
@chabi3000 rofl dude, you need to chill. it's her choice what she wants to look like, who she sleeps with etc. if you have a problem with her saying what she says, don't watch it. she has her own opinions, she's allowed to express herself like anyone else. you hating her for that is the same as hating a jew because he has money or a black guy because his skin is darker than yours. if most atheists are like you, i think i'm gonna go shave my head an become a Buddhist monk.
iraepu 1 year ago
@chabi3000
How ironic. A disgusting, sexist little pig who acts like a twelve-year-old, calling anyone shameful.
Such a cute little troll you are! :D
Anon11674 1 year ago
I remember my kindergarten teacher told me that God had to exist, because she had heard her grandmother speak to her after her death. Even then, I thought that was a bit far-fetched. ^_^
HydrogenIsExplosive 1 year ago
*turns off annotations*
StrugglingActorBlog 1 year ago
The main problem is I think with always trying to find an authority figure who will tell us what to do and what's right or wrong. It's simply childish. Remember the story of Abraham? Well, if angels exist (they may exist, i cant confirm or deny that) and they'd tell me things like "kill your mother" or "rape that little baby there and slit its throat" I WOULDN'T DO IT because I dont want to and I know its not right. Whoever wants me do it, I wont!
guzsaj 1 year ago
ZJ, you are amazing! I can't help but nod in agreement everytime I watch your videos.
BlueZephyrTG 1 year ago 2
He/She just likes attention. He/She just likes to annoy religious people by his/her annoying voice and rediculous arguments LOL Sounds like He/She is just desperate to get that attention so he/she is trying too hard! I even think he/she annoys atheists!!! LOL
KellyThundercloud 1 year ago
I believe you have my stapler.
knoshy 1 year ago
lol This didn't happen because it would have destroyed the earth.
TMBrd89 1 year ago
experiences could be just a "trick of the light" if you would please elaborate.
XPixiePrinceX 1 year ago
im not saying that you are wrong and that you are insinuating this, now i watched your video about faith and this video make me think even harder about how you seem to be insinuating that everyone who has faith is unintelligent, i am wiccan and have had some very unexplainable experiences, perceiving entities i believe to be spirits and my goddesses and gods , as with the sensing of energy now im not trying to disprove you or anything im still a little unclear about how my personal
XPixiePrinceX 1 year ago
The other animals didn't evolve because they still work. They still survive. So they are still reproducing.
SaruCharmed 1 year ago
i saw a gay angel.
straight marriage is sooo 2007!
De4sher 1 year ago 2
Very thorough... the drug your brain produces to make you dream (DMT) is the same drug that is released just before you die or have a near death experience. It's like a therapy drug your brain produces all on its own. But that's just idiot science talk. It's more likely that you really saw angels because there couldn't be any other explanation.
SpecialElisa 1 year ago
I saw an angel. Gay marriage is ok.
grendelee 1 year ago
More importantly even if the Angels were real that still wouldnt justify marital discrimination. Geez if you spend all that time explaining how hallucanations happen and neglect to address the moral shortcomings of their argument ppl might get the impression that somehow seeing Angels or hearing a demand from God automatically overides universal morality and justifies anything no matter how wrong
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
why are you dressed like a girl?
kevinrcreech 1 year ago
You forgot to mention bipolar disorder. I saw one sufferer in Stephen Fry's excellent documentary on bipolars who claimed to see angels when on the 'up' side.
colourmegone 1 year ago
I agree with your views, but you're a really obvious tranny.
jasonxdarby 1 year ago
Well, I don't see why an Angel can't limit themselves to being localized. I haven't had an experience like that, but how would I ever know it didn't happen. I find myself skeptical about these things as well.
SpickleSpank 1 year ago
I have, in fact, seen my own soul and God himself... while on mushrooms. But this obviously doesn't prove that either actually exist. That's bullshit. I'm not going to trust a strong drug experience, over my everyday experiences. It's much more likely i was hallucinating because of drugs than that my everyday life is tricking me to believe falsely about reality.
MicahtheGreat777 1 year ago
@ZJemptv science assumes that the world is intelligible, so it's not presuppositionless either.
redmonggo 1 year ago
@redmonggo Such an assumption isn't necessary. It's self-evident.
ZJemptv 1 year ago 21
@ZJemptv I honestly think you are being uncritical and biased towards atheism. no matter how self-evident something is, you always have to go back "to the things themselves" as how Husserl had put it.
redmonggo 1 year ago
@ZJemptv Sweetheart Rosie Jones, I wouldn't mind having a dream/hallucination where you are sitting by me and I have my arm draped over your shoulder and are discussing something interesting. Because you are so lovable.
azzy314159 7 months ago
@ZJemptv "self-evident" Translation: ZJ doesn't know how to justify his/her/its assumption, so s/he/it dishonestly claims it's "self-evident."
kmsoileau 2 months ago
How do you talk so fast without stuttering?
Banaany 1 year ago
Stop talking like that.
You're not a college professor.
foooooze 1 year ago
@JASONNHENCHMENN Well then, don't do it!
boyceps 1 year ago
That has to be about the best explination that i have ever heard. True and much more convincing than "It is so because it was written almost 2 milennia ago by desert wayferers who were trying to explain the unknown. :-)" i am REALLY curious as to what your IQ is.
boyceps 1 year ago
squat, then breath in through you nose and out through your mouth slowly 30 times, after youve done that, stand up realy quickly, imideatly grip your nose with your fingers and try to blow as hard as you can out your nose while not releasing air through your nose or mouth, you will pass out for 30 seconds and halucinate
ThePurelogic 1 year ago
derp
SkiFantic 1 year ago
Just shut the hell up! That's my argument. Don't make everything so dam complicated. God created us all in the way he wanted, no gays. Easy enough to explain in one sentence. Your so annoying.
TheFatty2497 1 year ago
ive taken lsd somewhere around 40(?) times give or take a few, Ive taken mushrooms probably the same amount of times. Never seen angels.
XtianWestendShamer 1 year ago
Awesome video ZJ big thumbs up, Respect, Peace
TheRenekruse 1 year ago
I can still see their username if we just turn annotations off. On the bottom right, you can click to turn it off on the pop out menu when you hover your mouse over it. You should've covered it before posting the video.
MyNameNoLongerExists 1 year ago
guy or girl ? :)
KyMsImPsOn 1 year ago
will you marry me?
kornbelt 2 years ago
You....... are right, my friend!
AstralMelody 2 years ago
I don't understand the connection at all between gay marriage and visions of angels. Whether or not they actually saw spirits is irrelevant; but what is their connection between seeing angels and immediately deciding that means homosexuality is wrong?
alexrousseau815 2 years ago
Attempting to apply logic to the arguments of some of these people is probably not productive.
amandarocksyoursocks 2 years ago
Amanda - It probably is not productive to attempt to apply logic behind such outlandish arguments. I suppose that's just me - I like to poke holes in debates.
alexrousseau815 2 years ago
They interpret it as proof of the existence of God/Allah, so they presume that their anti-gay religious beliefs have been verified.
MMA 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
u sound like a man thts just wrong!!
boos63 2 years ago
You're too smart for your own good.
GottaHaveItFavorited 2 years ago
God can do anyhting
AvatarXRoku 2 years ago
Title contains a comma splice.
Nulono 2 years ago
Im not asking this to insult you but are you a cross dresser?
FiveStarRookie 2 years ago
Define "cross dresser". Is a girl who wears pants a cross dresser?
Nulono 2 years ago
What?
FiveStarRookie 2 years ago
Comma splice: The usage of a comma to separate two independent clauses (a semicolon is needed).
Nulono 2 years ago
I just loooooove the way you casually put the most horrifying ideas right out there. "You would not be able to avoid noticing something like this because it would destroy the planet." Said just as casually as "This is due to pressure waves which are transmitted through the air."
I always get a kick out of that!
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago
i like the way you turn me on.
JessicaLovesJanelle 2 years ago
I love the way you stimulate my brain.
111Treasury 2 years ago 3
hahahahahahaha yup
Xendmust 2 years ago
You, being, ZJ, man, woman, alive, everything...a beautiful person
UnitedMusiciansInc 2 years ago 31
I've been watching your videos all night, and when you started talking about psychology (especially sensory perception and false memory), it was the best thing ever. I wanted to reach through the screen and kiss those lips.
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago 3
you are awesome
Dincilo 2 years ago 3
All we have is sensory experience. To suggest that the content of an experience is more valid or real because it is shared has no basis outside of scientific ideology. This notion appeals to the scientific principles of observability and repeatability. The importance of these two principles is an unquestioned assumption within science. Also as a side note, cults and societies are fantastic at getting a lot of people at once to have the same "false" experience. good video.
sodacop 2 years ago
I would contend that this "unquestioned assumption" is actually justified, and confirmed, by centuries of genuinely useful and productive results from scientific observation that have helped us to improve and refine our understanding of the world. I have to ask, what has come of working from contrary assumptions, or the view that observation and repeatability are irrelevant?
ZJemptv 2 years ago 2
You're arguing that repeatability and observability are justifiable principles because we have repeatedly observed this to be so? That seems circular. I haven't suggested that scientific method hasn't been helpful to us. Many people find religion helpful even though religious beliefs are also irrational.Can you give me an argument for the rationality of scientific method/principles that isn't circular(reliant on scientific principles as justification)?
sodacop 2 years ago
What exactly would the validity of the assumptions of science be proven by (or disproven by, at that), if confirmation (or disconfirmation) by repeated observation is somehow off-limits? What other modes of demonstrating something to be valid are acceptable, if that's ruled out? And how would you make an argument that scientific principles are unsound? Science works. Claiming that we shouldn't use the fact that it works as an argument for its validity doesn't change the fact that it works.
ZJemptv 2 years ago 3
On the contrary, your statement that "Science works" isn't always true. Science does not always work and in fact, it is always changing. For example - earth being the center of the universe.
samtrinh5 2 years ago
On the contrary, facts and productive results do not necessarily always explain everything even if there are thousands of studies or research. For example, there have been many studies suggesting that girls can't do well in math. Now there are many studies showing the reverse.
samtrinh5 2 years ago
The important feature of science is that it is self-correcting. What was geocentrism disproven by? More science. You say "it is always changing" as if that were a bad thing, when in fact that is the entire point of science. What would you consider preferable -- maintaining one dogmatic belief in the face of contrary evidence? The fact that science is a work in progress does not diminish the fact that real progress has been made using science. So what do you consider superior to science, then?
ZJemptv 2 years ago 8
Actually, if you looked carefully at what I had written, no where is there a negative connotation whatsoever. Hence, you are only assuming.
I never refuted that real progress has been made. If you read the my statement "...isn't always true" - this means that it may or may not be true not entirely one or the other.
samtrinh5 2 years ago
As to address your question of that which is superior to science, there really is no clear and absolute answer. Personally, as someone who has worked with researchers, you can have two contradictory theories proven. Analogously, I like to think of it as a psychologist testifying for the prosecution versus another psychologist testifying for the defense - two very different opinions - will be up to the jury to decide for themselves.
samtrinh5 2 years ago
Scientific theories never really get "proven". They get refined and updated (and sometimes altogether disproven). It is possible for there to be two contradicting hypotheses that adequately explain a phenomenon both without extraneous assumptions, and this is called underdetermination. There isn't enough information to choose between them.
Psychological testimonies are expert opinions of individuals, which is nothing at all like the scientific process.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
I've heard it explained best this way:
"Of course science doesn't know everything. If it did it would stop."
Dei7y 2 years ago
@ZJemptv religion is also a work in progress, mind you. In Catholicism, there is a Church that tries to interpret what is called "the signs of the times".
redmonggo 1 year ago
u guys should all be quiet. u call your self Christians when u swear at this man for being gay? i thought god said help people, not mock them. and leave him alone and enjoy his speeches. in his opinion, he likes guys. cant change that. what if percentage of straight people turn gay? u r straight and people make fun of u for that? not so good is it?
Rave4Techno 2 years ago
you are very smart
Rave4Techno 2 years ago
lol i can tell youre reading that
haticK 2 years ago
somebody tell me is this a dude dressed up like a chick or a manly woman?
mynameisdylanholcomb 2 years ago
Does it matter?
amandarocksyoursocks 2 years ago
KILL IT WITH FIRE.
MoonBearFilms 2 years ago
You say youv been compared to Noam Chomsky..Are you an anarchist?lol
LookingGlassThecure 2 years ago
R U A GUY OR A GIRL?
xRKOViper 2 years ago
When I am dreaming, I am perfectly aware that I am doing so. I can wake myself up at any time given that I want to. So, I suggest that all of you religious fanatics wake up any day now...
JakkHack 2 years ago 31
@JakkHack lucid dreaming.
pierepresentative8 1 year ago
@JakkHack Yeah I wish, but not everyone can lucid dream I'm afraid...
MuseToYourEars 1 year ago
Regarding the comment displayed at the beginning:
Who the hell types that out and thinks "Yeah, that's what I mean. Sounds good"? How dumb do you have to be to think that's an intelligent or remotely appropriate thing to say?
samOFblorx 2 years ago
gotta admit this guy knows his shit
xxwrecxx 2 years ago
What does seeing and existing of angels have to do with marring ?!?!?
kkriSTAR 2 years ago
hello star,
i just read your line of posts here and i like how you think, but i don't agree with it at all.
we have all heard of the vanishing stranger
we have all heard the healing angel story.
but i am also certain that for every one i could give an account of events that are simmilar but the angel figure was wrong or unhelpul.
infact i too haev a simmilar story with jt that. my mother told me that an angel told her i would be a girl!
sorry, i am all male, angel was not on the money here.
rlwiii 2 years ago
As someone who has worked in a psychiatric clinic, I know that many of what we call "Hallucinations" can not up to this day be 100% proven to be wrong. We assume and do test that help us a little bit, which is good, but never the less- we are still not able to either prove if supernatural beings exist OR not.
kkriSTAR 2 years ago
If as you say, our minds are capable of not always "seeing" right, who can proof that we are "seeing" or not "seeing" right when it comes to supernatural beings? Maybe what we call a "Hallucination" is real, but we cant "see" what we "see"? (does that make sense?)
kkriSTAR 2 years ago
There are thousand of stories, not only by people with religious views, but also scientology, which craft, satanists, people with no religious views (at least before they saw a "supernatural being"). Relying on only a few views, is not always very beneficial, check out the thousands of different stories you can find in internet.
kkriSTAR 2 years ago
I heard of stories of people in cars at night, and a "man" stopped them and they wondered why. In that moment a train passed right in front of them. if they hadn't stop, all incl. kids would of been dead. The "man" after that disappeared in front of their eyes.
kkriSTAR 2 years ago
I once was sick lying in bed, skipped school. Near evening I felt like I saw an angel. It came twards my bed, touched my stomach and disappeared. The weird part about it, was that immediately after that I felt better, got out of bed and went shopping.
kkriSTAR 2 years ago
Maann, I use to do acid & I didn't see a damn thang!
FranklenWylder 2 years ago
ah, your arguments are nothing but logic.
the only problem is that you're using logic to refute something fundamentally illogical. thanks for trying, but if people will believe what they want to believe regardless of whether it makes sense.
ah well.
xyzanonymous1 2 years ago
so many big words lol. but i totally agree with you on this:)
cheycheyh11 2 years ago
okay, then the situaton falls directly back to the onset of discovery?
two variants of the thought eperiment.
1: we hae already discovered it.
all we wuld need to do is test the place in the brain(name escapes at the moment) to see how this color interprataton is done and chemicly change it with a drug.
smae way it is theorized to cure known neural color blindness as opposed to optical color blindness which is a defect in the eye.
rlwiii 2 years ago
It's difficult to continue this conversation if you don't post your responses as replies to me
In your answer I see only one of the two varients you indicated, perhaps the second reply was lost. Suffice to say, responding to the premise "how do we discover it" with "we already did" is not acceptible.
The dilemma is how are we supposed to know that this one man is right and we all see things wrong? Even if we COULD investigate, then prove it in order to then be convinced, why would we try?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
sorry, i was having problems with the comments system yesterday.
rlwiii 2 years ago
the other was how to discover it
2:
we could place him in an experiment to host
several visual tests and if he is able to see something better than others can then his sight is benificial to ours, so his is more correct as he sees more detail then us.
rlwiii 2 years ago
This is going to sidetrack the debate somewhat, and I am perhaps being overly contentious but I'll just make this point anyway.
If you see the colours red and green reversed (regardless of which way round is "real") your "detail" is going to remain exactly the same. We're not talking about who has the most superior eyesight, we're talking about which is the truth. This point has already been established more or less when we addressed the fact that the interpretation will remain the same.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
You know what? I WAS being too contentious, let's forget that and just assume, for sake of argument, that there's some way to prove that our sight is wrong. What means we use is neither here nor there.
The defining question is this, how do we DISCOVER this in the first place? What's the motivation to develop the technology to prove something that you've absolutely no reason to believe? If this man really existed, and told you this truth, would you honestly take it seriously? Would ANYONE?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Which leads me finally to the point of my argument. In fact, I could have made this point from the moment you responded with the suggestion that we try to prove the truth.
In order to prove something we first must create the theory, this is basic scientific methodology. First the theory, then the search for evidence. But there is an even more basic, preliminary step; accepting it as valid enough to even consider as a theory.
I'm hoping that by now the method to my madness is emerging.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
You see, there IS relevance to this example, a very poignant one.
The fact is, this hypothetical man is *not* delusional, he is perfectly sane and experiences no hallucinations, yet he sees something nobody else can see. This is an obvious reconstruction of ESP designed to sound more realistic to the scientific ear.
I presented the hypothetical case that he is actually right and we are wrong in order to provoke your imagination into conceiving how we might react; your response was telling.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Even after the question had been clarified you struggled to answer. At first merely restating it. Then you jump straight to after we proved it and how we adapt, or to us proving it AFTER accepting it.
ZJ said it himself: Let me explain how sensory perception works.
Both yours and his comments betray a bias against the idea that these events are real, concordantly using science not as a tool for proving truth, but as an convenient reservoir of data you can exploit to validate your beliefs.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Don't take this as a personal criticizm, if anything take it in your scientific stride, after all we are all fallible and a good critic isn't afraid of being wrong.
My point is, you couldn't answer my hypothesis because you don't see HOW it would be possible for this one man to be believed. The simple fact is, he would not.
But how does this equate to "angel sightings"? Sufficed to say, my case is this: Whoever said that these things are seen with the regular senses in the first place?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
You said that if my hypothetical situation were to occur, we would need to develop or utilize some form of technology to prove it. The suggestions you made about what technology we should use were all flawed, but that's ok, you're not a scientist so it's perfectly acceptible for you not to have all the answers.
In order to prove it we need people who DO know what they are doing to develop NEW technology to do so. We need new SCIENCE to prove new CONCEPTS. Do you understand what I am saying?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
This means that using established science to attack a theory that doesn't even have a hypothesized explanation is redundant.
For example, if we tried to prove that he was wrong by explaining that things appear green because when light hits them, only the green wavelengths are reflected and the rest absorbed, this is a logical fallacy, as it depends on the assumption that green IS green. Ratherlike debunking angel sightings by presuming that photons had to hit the angel to make it visible. ;-)
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
If you don't know how something works, you can't disprove it just by pointing out how current science does not support it.
By that logic, planes could be seen to somehow defy gravity. Only when you understand, even rudementrily how planes work do you grasp their true relationship to gravity.
By the same token we cannot discount angel sightings because our current understanding of senses would seem to preclude the possibility. If we don't understand a science, we cannot criticize it.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
okay, this is something to put some though into.
so, lets really look here, science is in essense a processes of discovery, and not a colection pool of facts, this, okay, i do some times, but this in no wy validates the other supposed item, that he is correct, nor does it prov that the angel is correct.
so, lets truly put this toward analytical view and put it under scrutiny okay?
so, lets go through the steps that you outline.
rlwiii 2 years ago
so, step 1
generate a hypthtical theory to explain a phenomenon.
so, what is it that you claim is valid reason to even consider that they are existent?
what exactly is happening to generate the need for further investigation?
we have seen numerous regaurds of schtizophrenics, and lsd users seeing angels, we also know the see dragons and monkeys and fairies.
we have seen how easy it is to be tricked into thinking these things?
rlwiii 2 years ago
to put this in another light for you, i would liek you to have you post, in your next comment how many invisible fairies live in your shoes.
these fairies can only be seen by pouring sulphuric acid onto them.
am i going to get this request? no, you want to keep your shoes and dont want them ruined just to see if there are faires in them.
why? because you doubt that they are there, have no reason to think they would be.
rlwiii 2 years ago
you see, this is where your analogy dies.
colors are interprative, however, we did not discuss weather green and red were filtered through his eyes some how.
we assumed it was, and we assume that part of the spectrum taht holds green and red is still intact.
we have seen light, we have bent light, we have defracted ligght to see all the rainbw in a prism, we have no need to doubt light.
it is not based on somones claim without evidence.
rlwiii 2 years ago
I appreciate you taking the time to consider my points, a lesser person may have just dismissed me out of hand.
Unfortunately your first instinct is classic of the psuedo-skeptically trained, you see, immediately after considering my points you instinctually fall back onto a strawman argument.
I have been very careful with my wording, as I always am, and you will find when looking back over my posts that I never once stated that I believe or in anyway try to validate these angel sightings.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
You see, my purpose here was not to propose a belief but to challenge YOURS, to put your preconceptions under the spotlight. I already said, several posts back, that YOU can't be expected to prove scientifically that these things are false. Do you remember why I did this?
The point I was making is that we need to get those who DO know what they are doing, to find the truth for us. To do that they must first be open to the concept in the first place. But I never said I was one of these people.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
And this is all too often the reaction that those who DO experience these things get. "If what you saw is true, prove it." But these people are not trained scientists, demanding fully documented proof from them is like stopping someone in the street and demanding that they prove they have emotions. They can't, and even if they could, why should they?
My inability to prove how something is true does not in any way impact the fact that it is *possible*. Which is all I wanted you to consider.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
The critical thing to remember is that lack of proof doesn't equal disproof, after all I just proved that we ALL could be colour blind because you had a lack of proof to the contrary.
You see it is easy to refute the notion that your assumptions are flawed by just challenging the opposing theory. But even if that theory IS wrong, even if you ARE right, that doesn't change the fact that your assumptions are flawed. And if they are, how can you ever be certain, that your theory IS right...?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
All I wanted to do was encourage you to take a closer look at those assumptions. Maybe there is no proof that these things ARE real, but to come to the conclusion that they AREN'T based on this is not good skepticism or good science.
I just wanted you to understand that your belief that these things aren't real is just that; a belief. Every bit as superstitious and personal as the belief in god or anything spiritual. To prove the truth, we must be willing to discover it... WHATEVER it may be.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
Now, onto your points. I concede that I would no sooner pour acid into my shoes than a true scientist would risk time, resources and reputation trying to study matters considered paranormal. This is an excellent point you made, and it backs my position perfectly.
This is exactly WHY these matters have not been given the due time and consideration they deserve, which is WHY people like you are ingrained with the belief that such things are "proven wrong". It's understandable, but still a fact.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
I won't bother with the "filter colours" point because A, it doesn't really make sense, and B, it's academic as you already made the concession I needed from the scenario.
Doubt is the basic tenant of all scientific methodology, but we all too often forget that it must be applied universally. We have to doubt our own preconceptions as much as each other's. There are other explanations for these things, but the same can be said of anything. What matters is the willingness to consider them all.
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago
okay, then lets slightly switch over to something else that i am sure you can understand.
there is a fairly famous philosopher(russel?)
who had this summed up well, he was a cosmic teapot agnostic.
though he did never prove or disprove there is a teapot, he had no reason to believe it was there.this is why he made the argument, because he believed it to not exist.
rlwiii 2 years ago
your point of the man on the street not being able to prove his emotions, admitadly, this is a good point, but i also fidn it odd, that you think that no one educated in either science or philosophy has seen them and is willing to debate the issue.
i am a teapot, shoe fairy, santa clause, and angel agnostic, with no reason to believe otherwise.
especially since the evidence mosr aligns with dillusional mind oddities than an actual existence?
rlwiii 2 years ago
see, the color filtering i mentond was that the eye sees the light, and then filters it, and then we interpret it.
color would not exist without light.
so, when we see light being seperted into colors via prism or otherise, we know of the existance of colors,
now, i may interpret them as red green blue, or i may say that the light cast out the multi colored demons from the glass.
both are interpratations.
which one is more likley?
rlwiii 2 years ago
we can narrow this down to bare bones and say that my belief is jsut as superstitious as theirs is, but what is truly known anyway?
see decartes evil god.
rlwiii 2 years ago
To be frank, I'm finding it increasingly hard to discern anything intelligible from your words. Perhaps we got our wires crossed
You asked to change the discussion to that cosmic teapot guy but didn't actually make any points about him
Your colour filter argument which has become even more indecipherable, I'm struggling to believe even you know what you're trying to say.
Your final point sounds like a spiritualist evasion tactic? Are you suggesting there's no truth so why be scientific?
TheFounderUtopia 2 years ago