Please watch Michael Cremo and his proven theory that humans didn't originate from monkeys, or through evolution. Give it some thought and you will see that the basis for this video are incorrect, which means that everything after the first 10 seconds is incorrectly connected. Modern religion is wrong but opposing it doesn't make you right. Science made too many mistakes to be trusted, and it is as corrupt as modern religion, or worse. Thanks.
Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor) and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century). Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that Cremo's "specimens no longer exist" and dubbed the work pseudoscience.
Have you been studying his work or do you mold your opinions on others opinions?
Hear him out and see for yourself. You don't know what others have concluded. It is just their written word, and I wonder why would you trust them?
Just listen to Cremo, go through his videos if you're truly a scientific mind and make your own conclusions. He's got way too much evidence for such easy dismissal.On the other hand, if you don't want to do that, I'd understand. Lot of scientists are behaving like that.
If you're interested you will look for yourself. I am not here to convince you and inspire your scientific mind. These are some of the most important topics for mankind. If you want to know the truth, you would be more than willing to research. His peer review comes AFTER you study his work, not before. I am assuming that you first read his opposition, right? Your personal choices of scientific or un-scientific methods are your own choices. Thanks.
I have heard of him before. I cannot read every single peer reviewed article in existence. Science is based on slow pregression and peer review, not democracy and popularity. However, I will search for his work, and if I find actual articles I will read them. Note that I am not an archeologist, its not even within my field.
But so far we haven't had a successful social order. We've only had the elite exploiting the rest of the world. Do you base your ideas only on social failures? How do you construct a successful social concept if you don't know what would be the ideal one?
Social evolution as a field does not deal with utopian ideals or general ideology, but the study of sociology trough time. It deals with the stdy of society is now, and looks at societies in the past in the light of social evolution.
The idea of social order is not scientific. There exists no social order to this date that can be stated to be "correct". There is no social failure, only social change, unless an entire society is made extict.
Sociology is based on an idea of human evolution based largely on Darwinian theory of evolution. What if that theory is wrong?
Pls study Michale Cremo's work, there are plenty of videos on youtube, and you will see that today's sociology is totally flawed. If you don't have the correct social structure, all we're doing is correcting one mistake with another.
Darwin's theory was also based on empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge in itself is highly flawed because it is based on fallible human sense perception and the tools humans develop, which are also flawed. You cannot expect to get formidable results using flawed methods.
When you read a bible its perception. When I see a youtube video it is percetion. When I do anything and think anything it si based on perception. What you seem to be saying, is that we sould not rate percetion, and instead equal every percetion as equally true. If that is the case, we should not believe that shoting ourself in the face with a shootgun will lead to death, as such opinion is only based on perception.
You are right. The only thing we have is our subjective perception. But sense perception isn't the only perception we can have. So far, basing our civilization on our sense perception has proven to be fatal. Are you ready to acknowledge that there may be another kind of perception, the kind not bound to our limited senses? If yes, we can discuss it further. If not, then truly there isn't any hope, because everyone has the right to their own limited sense perception, and that is dangerous.
I do not see any evidence in my lifetime, this far, for perceptions outside the five senses. By that, I have never had any experience that I could not fully understand within empiricism and neurology. If you have seen "my stroke" video, you know that I have dealt with alternate perceptive reality. By evidence, any person that claims to have said perception must be able to prove it, according to basic factual tests.
And what would be the method of testing such perception?Surely you don't mean to test it with tools that depend on 5 senses?The only way to test this perception is by acquiring it yourself, testing it with the only valid method, which is our personal consciousness.
Just because you haven't had the opportunity to experience such perception doesn't mean others haven't.If you are truly a scientific mind, you would know that you must test it for yourself.Plugging fancy machines is an invalid method.
If someone claims to have any perception that afftects them it can be measured in brain activity. If they claim knowldge outside of time it can be tested.
If they have perception about something which cannot be tested by other senses I see it as a hoax and I care little for such people. I have no reason to believe there exists any such ability, and in the case it does exists, why should it bother me?
Brain activity is a sense perception. You offer false method of experimentation. Furthermore, you clearly state that you are not ready to test it at all, as you personally don't believe in it. This is not scientific at all, but as it is, you have the right to your own opinion. However, since you reject all notions of extrasensory perception, you are disqualified to discuss it. Nothing personal.
I would never try to halt anyones freedom to experience alternate perceptions. That is why I am for free drug use for all of legal age, and I want people to able to kill themselves whenever they please. In addition, they may do whatever they want to themselves, and believe anything, unless it endangers my life and my freedom.
I am not what you have declared is "truly scientific". I am a scientist. I work within empiricism.
OK, so you are an empirical scientist, the kind that believes only what senses can perceive.
In this way, you will never be able to experience anything above that, which means that your perception will always remain fallible and incompetent in one way or another. Also, your drug policy confirms that you are a person to be trusted with any kind of leadership, because you would drug everyone and ensure their demise. But I respect your freedom of choice. I have nothing more to say. Thank you.
Not if there is nothing else to percieve. While I am striving to master this world, you continue to pray.
And you are utterly mistaken. Try reading what I am saying, it will do you good. Everyone is master of their own will, and going between an adult and his wishes in regard to herself, is the maximum of all evil. Christianity, as an example, believes in free will, and believes it is the highest gift from God. Are you opposed to free will? If so, you and Lucifer are indeed good friends.
I assume you are Christian. I might be incorrect. If so, I appologize. But if you are, research free will in the light of Christianity. If you are not, you may hold any view of free will and how it should be applied in society.
First of all: good video. I am into sociology myself and know the theories. What I do have a problem with is your argumentation in the comments. Perhaps I am mistaken, but do you really discard anything you can´t "sense" (smell, see, touch, hear, taste)?
No, I do not discard what I cannot sense. What I mean by that is that if it CANNOT be sensed I must discard it. For instance I cannot sense a cell, yet it is there, and it can be sensed with equipment. That being said, there is most likely much that we cannot sense as of yet, and yes, I discard it. The reasoning is that i cannot take all possibilities into account and therefore go for a clear cut empirical model in my research and study.
But when you say you discard it for your research and study, do you mean you ONLY discard it for your research and study? What about your personal believes? I mean, there is so much non-empirical "stuff" in the world, I don´t think anyone could live without. Actually, I don´t even think you could do science without. What about meaning in general?
Well, when it coms to my person experience about my existence it changes all the time. As for meaning, I place myself as the creator of my meaning and purpose, and as such every moment is for the sake of experiencing.
Science needs a drive, it is done by humans and exist because of our needs. It has no life and is whatever we decide.
I´ve read some of your comments on other vids in the meantime. I thought you´d despise/discard philosophy in general, which would have made your stance implausible to me, not least because there is more than just empirical data, "meaning" is the best example for that. It seems you changed your mind on that.
I can't comment on the specifics without an actual comment to respond on but in general I change positions all the time.
According to my progression as a human I welcome mental change and strive to alter my own views/pradigms. That being said, I also make comments that are higly pointed and directed where I do not take my other position into account. I have made comments that have been seen as "anti-gay" even though I am gay, I have "defended" Christianity and been seen as a facist.
Here on youtube a single or even a set of comments must not be used as an indetifier of the persons entire position, instead only as what it is.
But You do well in asking me out on these positions, and do be honest, I might have been more totalitarian on certain views only a couple of years ago.
Most people around here have a mental horizon with the radius 0, that´s what they call their standpoint.
It´s good to see someone actually change his position rather than to defend it no matter what.
I myself am not too sure on many things and I enjoy a discussion where I get to know some arguments that might alter my views on the world. Therefore I like your stance on mental change.
Well, it is obvious that my brain cannot have taken all information into account when I come to a conclussion. As a result, I can only be certain on a superficial level. I need to remember that I only have a fraction of the information, and that the human brain is limited.
Looks like we can debate eachother on fair ground.
i would have hardly called jesus an alpha male. anyway, anyone who forces religion on you has not truly experienced the true force and prescence of god. seeking god is an intensely personal and intimate experience, and the best journey i have taken. you are right in not trusting congregations and institutions, i despise them too!! by the way, i like this clip a lot, it is well made. how did you make it?
I am pleased you enjoyed my video. In my personal story of experience, I have searched for and found my "god". Or atleast a part of it. I am not against ... spiritual searching. Experience of existence is, for me, the absolute and final reasoning for my existence.
I am glad you liked my video! First, I scripted it then made a crude video without effects in windows movie maker. I then entered all needed pictures, text and found the music. I cut with the music as coordinator.
I made the video and then cut it again adding tht grainy feel to it. It was one of my first videos so I needed to learn how to use WMM. For some reason I forgot to spell check it, leaving a few mistakes in it. Hope this answers your questions.
Are you aware of the multitude of religions that have a completely different perspective on divinity? Polytheism, henotheism (which do not always define a godhead), duotheism and atheistic religions (like some buddist traditions and taoism) do not give much help to your claim.
The sociological position clearly defines religious beliefs as an end result of fear of and ignorance about death. This is the starting point for spiritual belief that evolved into the religions today.
Well kind of Hans Jonas author of The Gnostic religion says that it has ties to existentialism and at the risk of making a hasty generalization, if someone does not believe in God and does not follow certain forms of Buddhism usually they are existentialists... By association the Gnostic religion has the atheistic quality of existentialism.
Still, gnostic religion is theistic as the main points in it is the dual existence. Either way, as I said, I am not a religious gnostic as my name might suggest. I do however love to study gnosticism as it is, by far, the most interesting theistic religion there is. Especially post-christian mythology. The pre-christian gnostic beliefs are interesting (like the egyptian versions) but does not show the political struggles we can so easily see in 300 ad, in the pre-roman catholic church.
I dont hate those who are not theists. I believe that in order to understand what the mystery was we need to go back to the beginning of the founding of said faith before, religious dogma and doctrine. I do believe what Neitzche said "We killed God..." We did that by thinking we knew what God was.
That is pretty much what science is doing. Trying to understand the mechanics at work on all levels of existence. No explanation added, simply trying to understand how something actually happened. By the way, Nietzche was talking about the notion of a mono-theist approach to god, and organized religions monopoly on truth. I don't think he ment it in some literal sense.
I know he was, neither do I think that is message is literal because, I dont believe God is "dead" I find God to be very much alive. Its our understanding of God that is dead.
The song is from a collection album. The song is "we want your SOULD" by free*land from the peace not war vol.2 album. Its just 1/3 of it. I have not heard the actual album. I don't even know if it exists. ;(
What I think you are rejecting is not God but dogma, this dogma has been around for some 2000 years that we think the Dogma is God, even if it is not. God is not a Problem/solution... But a Mystery something you participate in, thus God is Empirical in terms of psychology the change is inner more so than outer.
Well, thats fine I am just saying that the gnostic religion is like all forms of religious understanding... Atheistic, theistic, deistic, pantheistic... etc the Gnostic religion does not fully encompass one thought but all.
The primate picture is, if I remember correctly, an artistic rendering of an australopithecus; the common ancestor. However, I did find the picture in a hurry, so don't source this video. ;)
Religion is a desperate answer for the "unexplainable." Thunder was unexplainable 1,000 years ago. So there was a god for that. Imagine where we'll be 1,000 years from now.
I'm watching your work and are loving it. Ahh and I remember the days of Binny Lady and The Afghan-fotball Woman....sweet memories. We must drink coffee together.
Exactly. No more dancing around. The time of tolerance is over; say no to stupidity and willing ignorance, say no to those that want to teach your children about their stupidity and say no to laws that are based in old, dead books. No more disgusting lies!
No problem, hope my videos help you in some way, truth is not what a book or a person says. Truth is truth, it is objective, and we try our best with our limited faculties to understand it, with our limited perceptions. But I trust we are heading in the correct direction, as we can see in how science is developing. Now, to control ourself and not destroy ourselves with out findings.
I have a question...If these certain "authories" had to make up these "truths" to scare people in there place and keep them in line for their own mortal safety, then what about people who are not afraid to die? What would thees auhorities say to them? I sure there were some revolts goin on and and a few bad asses who like to push the envelope...why is there such a fear of death if there is no god or devil?
2) People that where not afraid to die under the conditions at those time ... died. Everybody fears death, from nature. You must specify how you perceive the fear of death.
3) There where revolts, but the strongest and largest group wins.
4) We fear the unknown, unthinkable. The brain does not fully manage to understand the lack of itself.
Did this help? You should see my evolution of delusion part 1 and 2.
"Fear" is not a constant but a fluctuating chemical event. When we developed the cognitive systems we "realized" the logical problem of death, as the brain has problems understanding nonexistence, leading to a unknown factor. Unknowns is automatically, due to our socio-evolution, a fear inducing element. It is fear that keeps us safe from unknown threats. This applies to imagination as well.
neurological and chemical processes...spirituallity as engine for decompressing from all the lies and manipulation i'm subjected to on a moment to moment basis..soul? as in the music?
ahhh the big trap..it grabs your brain from your cranium...then takes you by the ankles and shakes you of all your loot and fleeces you for a lifetime!.. Knight's of Templar..werent they the first banking system?..dubious indeed hmmmmmm
Why Jesus did not wright own book?He was 33 years ON earth he put 2.5 years his LIFE time let Mary change his diaper but he had no time to say one second let be a bible than there was a bible?
Critias of the 5th century BC said much the same as you do about religion: something used by law-makers to make people fear breaking the laws. It's in his play Sisyphus.
He also said: "Nothing is certain, except that having been born we die, and that in life one cannot avoid disaster."
Yes. Well, the difference is that I try to present socio-science. But the analysis have been done even before the 5th century; early Greeks where mindful people. ;)
That deep. I'll leave that to you cause I only understand elements and numbers on unit circle. :D I have a lot of question however you may be able to answer pertaining to ancient history and not that this B.S. they brainwash us here in south Ga. ;)
I have no understanding of your field of study; every man is his own genius. I will be more then happy to try to answer any question you have in the light of socio-mechanics. If I don't know the answer, i will research it. Maybe even do a video on it.
Where did science come from? Who or what created the universe? I studied chemistry and math for a number of years and I'm here to tell you, that stuff is HARD! What force on earth or any where could have design such a complex study such as chemistry, organic, inorganic, physical, doesnt matter, or math... algebra, trig, calI, calII, or calIII? Where did all this info originate?
As far as I see it, there is no need for me to think about concepts outside of the human mind. But "eternal" means in this sense nothing: The universe was eternal, all energy condensed without change leaves no time to be had, and in the beginning no time existed; forever. Or eternal pulse; Nietzsche's idea. The possibilities are endless. I will wait for QM and see.
a very good idea ;) and yes I went back an read the debate you and lefde had which is why I was tempted to leave that msg for him (which I hope he reads) it really seems sometimes as though those with strong faith have a built-in ignorance to deny anything that poses a threat to their beleifs. Oh well..anyways excellent video once again, and always nice to see another logical thinker out there. wish you the best.
And as for lefde: you can argue your point till your blue in the mouth (or in this case until your fingers are sore) but nothing short of certified proof will persuade a logical thinker to abandon what we beleive to be true, but by all means go about your business and pray to whatever gods you need to to sleep at night, just don't feel too badly that not everyone needs a god.
Excellent video Gnostic, and I completely agree with what you say in your profile about Atheism being a result and not a beleif. I've always trusted logic above all else. I've always beleived that the simplest most logical answer is often the right one, and it's far more logical that we created god and not the other way around.
that song is so freakin catchy. There was a video about new world order that was playing this song and it matched so well with this song. I was like "I can't stop shaking it." AHWHWHWH Just playing.
The theory cannot leave room for ambiguity. A theory with ambiguis terms is no theory at all. everything about the theory has to be exactly clear. It can be a theory that is easy and short. mabye a basic principle of evolution? something that we can agree on quickly would be preferable
I am sorry, your arguments does not entail any evidence or reference. I do not see how your banana has anything to do with the created notion of "the afterlife" which fearful people created in their minds to cope with their newfound nihilistic feelings.
No the science of pschycology you have is not real... The afterlife can be thought of in many ways... like the moon was... at first people said to have doscovered the moon. some said it was a giant planet that could be landed on. Then the moon was landed on. The afterlife is like the moon. Some people believe it is a physical reality that can be accomplished. others believe differently. The banana is a symbol of REALITY.you pschycologically might "depend" on it, but it is nevertheless a REALITY
If people didn't beleive that the AFTERLIFE was a real truth. They would have no pleasure in doing the whole ceremony. It would be like jumping into a pool you know is empty. They believed they saw the water in the pool. Whether they were wrong is a different story. Just because water is a necessary substance to maintain life. Doesn't mean we invented it out of fear.
When a person COPES. it is necessary to use the elements of reality. If not the coping would eventually fall apart. It would have become a self destructive act of misguidance
Death is simply an obstacle... We already have 135 year olds walking around, there could be 180 year olds or 1000 year olds or whatever. You believe in death right. How about crime scenes. Why is it that a good investigator can determine were the bullets flew, how many people participated. Even the pschycoligy of the killer....
The good investigator is the good scientist. There is no difference. Death may be halted. And gods may exist, and teapots in the sky. Proof is contemporary, and testable. Not science-fiction based on can-becomes.
I am not saying you should put a cap on your head and call yourself a jew. This is what you are saying: Since we currently can't teleport people that means nobody can or ever will. Since we can't do this then it will always be impossible. Good luck getting to the moon. By your view if it hasn't been done before it can't be done!!!!LOL
Nope. What I am saying is that with the current technology level and our understanding of QM we have no way to do anything, other then wait on the science. In the meantime I will work on my field and do my contribution. The science that is QP is important and follows the scientific method.
This method will either prove or disprove. Maybe it proves some god one day? Then lets wait and see, and in the meantime I stick to what is known and work from there in baby steps. That is what I say. Always has. There is no god until proven.
Science is dull. It works slowly and according to a series of tests and hypothesis' that must be checked and rechecked. Of course it is dull. I cannot jump from different philosophical fantasies without doing actual work!
Prove the afterlife. When we die the electric and chemical activity in our brains stop and we are "back" where we was before we was born. We are nothing.
The electrical activity thing is only one of the opinions on death. Just because electrical activity ceases doesn't mean that it can not become electrical in the future. It just means we have no current solution for the problem
I do not see the supernatural argument. Yours is a science-fiction argument, and does not relate to the needs to adapt psychologically to the fears induced by original nihilism. The argument that the body can be scientifically reincarnated, or cloned, is philosophical in nature and untestable at this time. Therefore not interesting in my studies.
Do you think the way a piece of glass that has been shattered can be known by looking at the evidence...
If so, you can be reconstructed after your death by piecing you back together the same way a class vase is pieced back together after it is shattered, obviously more precisely than that though. There are even ideas of teleportation with quantum mechanics. That is death and resurection in another part of the world.
Yes of course. In an open ended theory everything is possible. But it is still nothing more then science-fiction at best or philosophical masturbation at the worst. We know FAR to little about QM to make any wild speculations.
just because you don't understand something doesn't mean no one can. You are to deep into the mud!
Why do you deny everything that you cannot see with your own eyes!! I suppose algeria doesn't have a leader... no killling going on down there, nope... I didn't see it myself so it must be impossible!! Forget the the existence of socrates, he could not have existed unless I see him myself!!
Yep just working the baby steps... nothing says all those history documents werent forged... Yeh of course. there is no way the atomic bomb exists I havent tested it myself!!
Do you not see the difference between actual provable occurrences in the real world, like Algeria, where I can travel to, which I have seen on tv, which I have read physical accounts on by real scientists and historians, and the claims of something unprovable, like aliens and gods? Mental masturbation without empirical basis is of no concern to me. Go talk with a philosophy major, I don't study the topic.
how dare you. You know well that you don't have any basis to prove that everything you don't understand is impossible. You do believe it though... That is what kills your whole argument. You disbelieve everything that isn't laid out in front of your face. You put yourself behind your scientific excuses like a wallstreet stock broker runs under a roof to shield himself from the rain. The rain still exists. And when it rains it poors!
You have biases, you have mis conceptions about reality, instead of creating new methods to discern the truth you stick with the old. There is no science fiction in what I say. I was simply giving examples to open your mind a little. But apparently the number one rule of your science is: don't open your mind to other ideas... what a coincidence... What a similarity to religious dogmas!!
Evidence does not come from philosophical circular logic. Evidence needs sources outside of the mind, tangible in a sense, testable, verifiable. Have you ever considered the possibility that this is it? The material, energetic, QM world we live in is the whole? Why add without proof? I don't, I wait. Science is all I need, and all the dreams... well, they are pretty, but they don't impress me.
religious people will tell you loads of what they consider to be proof. The scientific method is just a little game scientists play because it is the only game that is fun to them... QM and chemistry and physics are all based on observations-As the bibles defendors claim the bible is based on. OF course there are more observations to be had more things to be learned. in its infancy of course it isn't the whole truth
material and energetic? Both of those concepts are assumptions made for theoretical concepts.
Energy is electricity. Electrical current can be GENERATED. The world isn't energetic. electricity is energetic. And we can generate it using the world. Thus the world is seen as capable of harboring energy, not as energetic. MAtter is another issue. it has different meanings depending on the theory. There is no matter in the world. Theorists ASSUME that matter exists to elaborate on other issues.
A game? The computer your using now is a product of this game. So is everything in our modern world. What religious people consider proof is subjective with no method to test its actual basis in objective reality.
You are so stubborn. Here is the similarity between science and religion. Science is based on observed phenomena that is described using theories. Religion is also based on observed phenomena using written accounts of what happened. Either a scientist or a theologan can both lie about what they have observed or know about the world. There is no difference between the two. You say science is all immediately provable but it isn't.
It damn well isn't. If it was that would mean that no errors occur... You are trying to turn the world into a science experiment. Computers are not science. They are a product. Spoons are not science they are a product. SAME WITH rocks spears bows and arrows. they are not science. You want to say they are but they arent
You try to advertise science when like anything else. it is A method for an end. The end is always different and the means is always different. EVEN if there are METHODS. Science is no different from carpentry in that sense. Statistics are manipulated. Science is advertised as the holy grail. But that nonsense. Science, as is religion based on supposed observed accounts. Science people have misconceptions as do religios people. It is overwhelmingly clear that they do so in equal proportion.
No. Science does not stand still. There are no bibles. No paradigms that will stand forever if proven wrong. Unlike religions and their dogmas, with basis in scripture.
So you are admiting that all of science will be proven wrong? If it will all be proven wrong why ever consider it correct in the first place? to enchant school children and highschoolers. To get them to 'become interested' If the truth is not in science theories then they will turn they're heads???? ah ha
Computers are a product of science. To debate this is ludicrous. Spoons are a product of metallurgy, it is a science. All these things are product of human reasoning through different scientific methods.
Please watch Michael Cremo and his proven theory that humans didn't originate from monkeys, or through evolution. Give it some thought and you will see that the basis for this video are incorrect, which means that everything after the first 10 seconds is incorrectly connected. Modern religion is wrong but opposing it doesn't make you right. Science made too many mistakes to be trusted, and it is as corrupt as modern religion, or worse. Thanks.
kakudmi 2 years ago
Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor) and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century). Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that Cremo's "specimens no longer exist" and dubbed the work pseudoscience.
Wiki,
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Have you been studying his work or do you mold your opinions on others opinions?
Hear him out and see for yourself. You don't know what others have concluded. It is just their written word, and I wonder why would you trust them?
Just listen to Cremo, go through his videos if you're truly a scientific mind and make your own conclusions. He's got way too much evidence for such easy dismissal.On the other hand, if you don't want to do that, I'd understand. Lot of scientists are behaving like that.
kakudmi 2 years ago
Link me to his peer reviewed articles so I can read counter articles as well. I am not interested in videos, only his actual scientific work.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
If you're interested you will look for yourself. I am not here to convince you and inspire your scientific mind. These are some of the most important topics for mankind. If you want to know the truth, you would be more than willing to research. His peer review comes AFTER you study his work, not before. I am assuming that you first read his opposition, right? Your personal choices of scientific or un-scientific methods are your own choices. Thanks.
kakudmi 2 years ago
I have heard of him before. I cannot read every single peer reviewed article in existence. Science is based on slow pregression and peer review, not democracy and popularity. However, I will search for his work, and if I find actual articles I will read them. Note that I am not an archeologist, its not even within my field.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
If archeology isn't your field, then why do you base your conclusions and ideas on the conclusions of archeology?
Do you have a blind faith in it or did you test it yourself?
I suggest listening to M. Cremo on youtube, there are various radio shows, and I am sure you will get a general idea about his work.
thanks
(respect to you)
kakudmi 2 years ago
I base my coclussions on social evolution. Thats my field.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
But so far we haven't had a successful social order. We've only had the elite exploiting the rest of the world. Do you base your ideas only on social failures? How do you construct a successful social concept if you don't know what would be the ideal one?
thanks
kakudmi 2 years ago
Social evolution as a field does not deal with utopian ideals or general ideology, but the study of sociology trough time. It deals with the stdy of society is now, and looks at societies in the past in the light of social evolution.
The idea of social order is not scientific. There exists no social order to this date that can be stated to be "correct". There is no social failure, only social change, unless an entire society is made extict.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Sociology is based on an idea of human evolution based largely on Darwinian theory of evolution. What if that theory is wrong?
Pls study Michale Cremo's work, there are plenty of videos on youtube, and you will see that today's sociology is totally flawed. If you don't have the correct social structure, all we're doing is correcting one mistake with another.
kakudmi 2 years ago
Darwinian theory is not used anymore. Modern theory of evolution is based on empirical evolution.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Darwin's theory was also based on empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge in itself is highly flawed because it is based on fallible human sense perception and the tools humans develop, which are also flawed. You cannot expect to get formidable results using flawed methods.
kakudmi 2 years ago
WE only base ourself on percetion.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
When you read a bible its perception. When I see a youtube video it is percetion. When I do anything and think anything it si based on perception. What you seem to be saying, is that we sould not rate percetion, and instead equal every percetion as equally true. If that is the case, we should not believe that shoting ourself in the face with a shootgun will lead to death, as such opinion is only based on perception.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
You are right. The only thing we have is our subjective perception. But sense perception isn't the only perception we can have. So far, basing our civilization on our sense perception has proven to be fatal. Are you ready to acknowledge that there may be another kind of perception, the kind not bound to our limited senses? If yes, we can discuss it further. If not, then truly there isn't any hope, because everyone has the right to their own limited sense perception, and that is dangerous.
kakudmi 2 years ago
I do not see any evidence in my lifetime, this far, for perceptions outside the five senses. By that, I have never had any experience that I could not fully understand within empiricism and neurology. If you have seen "my stroke" video, you know that I have dealt with alternate perceptive reality. By evidence, any person that claims to have said perception must be able to prove it, according to basic factual tests.
If not able to prove it, it is discarded..
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
And what would be the method of testing such perception?Surely you don't mean to test it with tools that depend on 5 senses?The only way to test this perception is by acquiring it yourself, testing it with the only valid method, which is our personal consciousness.
Just because you haven't had the opportunity to experience such perception doesn't mean others haven't.If you are truly a scientific mind, you would know that you must test it for yourself.Plugging fancy machines is an invalid method.
kakudmi 2 years ago
If someone claims to have any perception that afftects them it can be measured in brain activity. If they claim knowldge outside of time it can be tested.
If they have perception about something which cannot be tested by other senses I see it as a hoax and I care little for such people. I have no reason to believe there exists any such ability, and in the case it does exists, why should it bother me?
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Brain activity is a sense perception. You offer false method of experimentation. Furthermore, you clearly state that you are not ready to test it at all, as you personally don't believe in it. This is not scientific at all, but as it is, you have the right to your own opinion. However, since you reject all notions of extrasensory perception, you are disqualified to discuss it. Nothing personal.
kakudmi 2 years ago
I would never try to halt anyones freedom to experience alternate perceptions. That is why I am for free drug use for all of legal age, and I want people to able to kill themselves whenever they please. In addition, they may do whatever they want to themselves, and believe anything, unless it endangers my life and my freedom.
I am not what you have declared is "truly scientific". I am a scientist. I work within empiricism.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
OK, so you are an empirical scientist, the kind that believes only what senses can perceive.
In this way, you will never be able to experience anything above that, which means that your perception will always remain fallible and incompetent in one way or another. Also, your drug policy confirms that you are a person to be trusted with any kind of leadership, because you would drug everyone and ensure their demise. But I respect your freedom of choice. I have nothing more to say. Thank you.
kakudmi 2 years ago
Not if there is nothing else to percieve. While I am striving to master this world, you continue to pray.
And you are utterly mistaken. Try reading what I am saying, it will do you good. Everyone is master of their own will, and going between an adult and his wishes in regard to herself, is the maximum of all evil. Christianity, as an example, believes in free will, and believes it is the highest gift from God. Are you opposed to free will? If so, you and Lucifer are indeed good friends.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Sorry, I think now you began to talk nonsense. I have no desire to communicate further. Thanks.
kakudmi 2 years ago
I assume you are Christian. I might be incorrect. If so, I appologize. But if you are, research free will in the light of Christianity. If you are not, you may hold any view of free will and how it should be applied in society.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
"I am a scientist. I work with empiricism."
No you're not. You're a soapbox atheist who has taken atheism and turned it into a psudeo scientific religion, a true disservice to science.
This is why people like fatgermanbastard put you in your place.
In addition, the conciousness cannot be accurately tested and you are being misleading with that.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
damn to all religions
RABISO 3 years ago
First of all: good video. I am into sociology myself and know the theories. What I do have a problem with is your argumentation in the comments. Perhaps I am mistaken, but do you really discard anything you can´t "sense" (smell, see, touch, hear, taste)?
ontic5 3 years ago
Thanks.
No, I do not discard what I cannot sense. What I mean by that is that if it CANNOT be sensed I must discard it. For instance I cannot sense a cell, yet it is there, and it can be sensed with equipment. That being said, there is most likely much that we cannot sense as of yet, and yes, I discard it. The reasoning is that i cannot take all possibilities into account and therefore go for a clear cut empirical model in my research and study.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
I see...
But when you say you discard it for your research and study, do you mean you ONLY discard it for your research and study? What about your personal believes? I mean, there is so much non-empirical "stuff" in the world, I don´t think anyone could live without. Actually, I don´t even think you could do science without. What about meaning in general?
ontic5 3 years ago
Well, when it coms to my person experience about my existence it changes all the time. As for meaning, I place myself as the creator of my meaning and purpose, and as such every moment is for the sake of experiencing.
Science needs a drive, it is done by humans and exist because of our needs. It has no life and is whatever we decide.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
O.K.
I´ve read some of your comments on other vids in the meantime. I thought you´d despise/discard philosophy in general, which would have made your stance implausible to me, not least because there is more than just empirical data, "meaning" is the best example for that. It seems you changed your mind on that.
ontic5 3 years ago
I can't comment on the specifics without an actual comment to respond on but in general I change positions all the time.
According to my progression as a human I welcome mental change and strive to alter my own views/pradigms. That being said, I also make comments that are higly pointed and directed where I do not take my other position into account. I have made comments that have been seen as "anti-gay" even though I am gay, I have "defended" Christianity and been seen as a facist.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Here on youtube a single or even a set of comments must not be used as an indetifier of the persons entire position, instead only as what it is.
But You do well in asking me out on these positions, and do be honest, I might have been more totalitarian on certain views only a couple of years ago.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Most people around here have a mental horizon with the radius 0, that´s what they call their standpoint.
It´s good to see someone actually change his position rather than to defend it no matter what.
I myself am not too sure on many things and I enjoy a discussion where I get to know some arguments that might alter my views on the world. Therefore I like your stance on mental change.
ontic5 3 years ago
Well, it is obvious that my brain cannot have taken all information into account when I come to a conclussion. As a result, I can only be certain on a superficial level. I need to remember that I only have a fraction of the information, and that the human brain is limited.
Looks like we can debate eachother on fair ground.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
i would have hardly called jesus an alpha male. anyway, anyone who forces religion on you has not truly experienced the true force and prescence of god. seeking god is an intensely personal and intimate experience, and the best journey i have taken. you are right in not trusting congregations and institutions, i despise them too!! by the way, i like this clip a lot, it is well made. how did you make it?
replikant0101 3 years ago
I am pleased you enjoyed my video. In my personal story of experience, I have searched for and found my "god". Or atleast a part of it. I am not against ... spiritual searching. Experience of existence is, for me, the absolute and final reasoning for my existence.
I am glad you liked my video! First, I scripted it then made a crude video without effects in windows movie maker. I then entered all needed pictures, text and found the music. I cut with the music as coordinator.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
I made the video and then cut it again adding tht grainy feel to it. It was one of my first videos so I needed to learn how to use WMM. For some reason I forgot to spell check it, leaving a few mistakes in it. Hope this answers your questions.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Are you aware of the multitude of religions that have a completely different perspective on divinity? Polytheism, henotheism (which do not always define a godhead), duotheism and atheistic religions (like some buddist traditions and taoism) do not give much help to your claim.
The sociological position clearly defines religious beliefs as an end result of fear of and ignorance about death. This is the starting point for spiritual belief that evolved into the religions today.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
-Christians, Jews and Muslims follow the same God.
-Zoroastrianism: One God, Heaven - preceded Christianity.
-The Aborigines in Australia tell of one creator being named Indjuwanydjuwa, who created man from mud.
-Sikhs and Hindus (Henotheistic) follow the One Creator, unveiled and named Brahma respectively.
-Native Americans believed in the One Creator
How does primitive alpha males force a God transcendent through geographic and cultural barriers? Perhaps God is not mere legend.
Cypherus21 3 years ago
Well kind of Hans Jonas author of The Gnostic religion says that it has ties to existentialism and at the risk of making a hasty generalization, if someone does not believe in God and does not follow certain forms of Buddhism usually they are existentialists... By association the Gnostic religion has the atheistic quality of existentialism.
godfather89 3 years ago
Still, gnostic religion is theistic as the main points in it is the dual existence. Either way, as I said, I am not a religious gnostic as my name might suggest. I do however love to study gnosticism as it is, by far, the most interesting theistic religion there is. Especially post-christian mythology. The pre-christian gnostic beliefs are interesting (like the egyptian versions) but does not show the political struggles we can so easily see in 300 ad, in the pre-roman catholic church.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
I dont hate those who are not theists. I believe that in order to understand what the mystery was we need to go back to the beginning of the founding of said faith before, religious dogma and doctrine. I do believe what Neitzche said "We killed God..." We did that by thinking we knew what God was.
godfather89 3 years ago
That is pretty much what science is doing. Trying to understand the mechanics at work on all levels of existence. No explanation added, simply trying to understand how something actually happened. By the way, Nietzche was talking about the notion of a mono-theist approach to god, and organized religions monopoly on truth. I don't think he ment it in some literal sense.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
I know he was, neither do I think that is message is literal because, I dont believe God is "dead" I find God to be very much alive. Its our understanding of God that is dead.
godfather89 3 years ago
sorry, i don't mean to go off the point, but I like this song, what's the album like?
MuhammadChrist 3 years ago
The song is from a collection album. The song is "we want your SOULD" by free*land from the peace not war vol.2 album. Its just 1/3 of it. I have not heard the actual album. I don't even know if it exists. ;(
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Why do you call yourself Gnostic and Atheist?
godfather89 3 years ago
It is koine greek.
GnosticAtheist; GnosisAtheos; Gnosis = knowledge, Atheos; without god.
GnoticAtheist is a "strong" atheist, disregards the possibility of non-empirical data.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
What I think you are rejecting is not God but dogma, this dogma has been around for some 2000 years that we think the Dogma is God, even if it is not. God is not a Problem/solution... But a Mystery something you participate in, thus God is Empirical in terms of psychology the change is inner more so than outer.
godfather89 3 years ago
I do not have many problems with deist or like minded approaches to the concept of god. However, I do not see any need to insert a god force.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Well, thats fine I am just saying that the gnostic religion is like all forms of religious understanding... Atheistic, theistic, deistic, pantheistic... etc the Gnostic religion does not fully encompass one thought but all.
godfather89 3 years ago
Obviously you are referring to the modern interpretations?
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Sensational video.
Which species of primate is featured at 0:16?
DeismAndReason 3 years ago
Thanks, glad you liked it.
The primate picture is, if I remember correctly, an artistic rendering of an australopithecus; the common ancestor. However, I did find the picture in a hurry, so don't source this video. ;)
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Awsome video!
LeChienNoir88 3 years ago
Thanks!
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Really, I mean it! I like your videos because they put a nice artistic twist onto the debate. It's very creative!
LeChienNoir88 3 years ago
Thanks. I try. ;)
Not everything is of the same quality but I try. Its harder then I thought to translate sociological science to a few minutes of artsy videos. ;)
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Yeah, I see how that could be tricky!
FadzoTheClown 3 years ago
Dear God that was awesome
Obsidean 4 years ago
Nice, glad you liked it.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
brilliant
raulitech 4 years ago
Perfect video! I loved it.
bgjohnla 4 years ago
This is an excellent video that boils down a complex issue very simply.
CadicusTheDamned 4 years ago
Religion is a desperate answer for the "unexplainable." Thunder was unexplainable 1,000 years ago. So there was a god for that. Imagine where we'll be 1,000 years from now.
Lymphomaniac 4 years ago
Lovely my dear! Hihihi!
marmottus 4 years ago
Well, that is good... I hope. ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I'm watching your work and are loving it. Ahh and I remember the days of Binny Lady and The Afghan-fotball Woman....sweet memories. We must drink coffee together.
marmottus 4 years ago
Yes, the days of glory! Let us meet tomorrow and dream of the days of old!
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
From an Age of ignorance and superstition came Religion,
And ever since the powers that be have used it to control the Duped masses.
It's Time To Fight Back, before it's to late.
RevolutionarySon 4 years ago
Exactly. No more dancing around. The time of tolerance is over; say no to stupidity and willing ignorance, say no to those that want to teach your children about their stupidity and say no to laws that are based in old, dead books. No more disgusting lies!
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Long before the first Christian Crusades There Lived a Blind Syrian Poet who stated.
The Jews the Muslims the Christians They have All got it Wrong.
There are two types of people in this world, Those with Brains and No Religion, and Those with Religion and No Brains.
Even A Blind Man who lived Thousands of years ago could See the Truth about Humanity.
RevolutionarySon 4 years ago
Yup. Many people have seen this, even in greek times, long before christ.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
this is really good...i like the song also...
wasy35 4 years ago
Thank you. May I recommend my "Evolution of delusion" part one and two as well? Same topic, different approach.
;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Thank you sir...I will definitely check that vid out
ramalvision 4 years ago
No problem, hope my videos help you in some way, truth is not what a book or a person says. Truth is truth, it is objective, and we try our best with our limited faculties to understand it, with our limited perceptions. But I trust we are heading in the correct direction, as we can see in how science is developing. Now, to control ourself and not destroy ourselves with out findings.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I have a question...If these certain "authories" had to make up these "truths" to scare people in there place and keep them in line for their own mortal safety, then what about people who are not afraid to die? What would thees auhorities say to them? I sure there were some revolts goin on and and a few bad asses who like to push the envelope...why is there such a fear of death if there is no god or devil?
ramalvision 4 years ago
Point by point.
1) Authorities did not create this truths, they were created by the collective, and leaders used them, unknowingly, to hold their power base.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
2) People that where not afraid to die under the conditions at those time ... died. Everybody fears death, from nature. You must specify how you perceive the fear of death.
3) There where revolts, but the strongest and largest group wins.
4) We fear the unknown, unthinkable. The brain does not fully manage to understand the lack of itself.
Did this help? You should see my evolution of delusion part 1 and 2.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I don't think people really do fear death, only sometimes people will fear the pain of death.
If everyone feared what happens after death, they would be desperate enough to never touch alcohol, cigarettes, junkfood ever again.
itsjustcommonsense 4 years ago
"Fear" is not a constant but a fluctuating chemical event. When we developed the cognitive systems we "realized" the logical problem of death, as the brain has problems understanding nonexistence, leading to a unknown factor. Unknowns is automatically, due to our socio-evolution, a fear inducing element. It is fear that keeps us safe from unknown threats. This applies to imagination as well.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
spirituality makes sense, religion does not...my society is a false reality.
wasy35 4 years ago
Well, it depends what you mean, spirituality, as I see it is a neurological and chemical processes; do you agree or do you also encompass a soul?
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
neurological and chemical processes...spirituallity as engine for decompressing from all the lies and manipulation i'm subjected to on a moment to moment basis..soul? as in the music?
wasy35 4 years ago
lol. I will take your answer as some kind of yes... ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
yes you are correct...you win a million euros...i agree. fuck religion, mind control?
wasy35 4 years ago
Send the money to a research facility near you. ;)
oh, everything can be mind control if used correctly... But religion tend to be the best, especially when those using it as such believe it as well.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
WHATS THE SONG ITS KILLER
chindoo 4 years ago
The song is "we want your SOULD" by free*land from the peace not war vol.2 album. Its just 1/3 of it.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
ahhh the big trap..it grabs your brain from your cranium...then takes you by the ankles and shakes you of all your loot and fleeces you for a lifetime!.. Knight's of Templar..werent they the first banking system?..dubious indeed hmmmmmm
excellent song..
MissAnthropic66 4 years ago
Why Jesus did not wright own book?He was 33 years ON earth he put 2.5 years his LIFE time let Mary change his diaper but he had no time to say one second let be a bible than there was a bible?
babri62 4 years ago
Spectacularly good. A real gem.
philhellenes 4 years ago
Well thank you! Nice hearing such from you ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Critias of the 5th century BC said much the same as you do about religion: something used by law-makers to make people fear breaking the laws. It's in his play Sisyphus.
He also said: "Nothing is certain, except that having been born we die, and that in life one cannot avoid disaster."
Aravadia 4 years ago
Yes. Well, the difference is that I try to present socio-science. But the analysis have been done even before the 5th century; early Greeks where mindful people. ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Great song for this.
theStickerBush 4 years ago
Yeah, it does fit into the perspective.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Nice =)
Rhoneboi 4 years ago
Thanks ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Thank you
Wardoge56 4 years ago
That deep. I'll leave that to you cause I only understand elements and numbers on unit circle. :D I have a lot of question however you may be able to answer pertaining to ancient history and not that this B.S. they brainwash us here in south Ga. ;)
Wardoge56 4 years ago
I have no understanding of your field of study; every man is his own genius. I will be more then happy to try to answer any question you have in the light of socio-mechanics. If I don't know the answer, i will research it. Maybe even do a video on it.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Where did science come from? Who or what created the universe? I studied chemistry and math for a number of years and I'm here to tell you, that stuff is HARD! What force on earth or any where could have design such a complex study such as chemistry, organic, inorganic, physical, doesnt matter, or math... algebra, trig, calI, calII, or calIII? Where did all this info originate?
Wardoge56 4 years ago
As far as I see it, there is no need for me to think about concepts outside of the human mind. But "eternal" means in this sense nothing: The universe was eternal, all energy condensed without change leaves no time to be had, and in the beginning no time existed; forever. Or eternal pulse; Nietzsche's idea. The possibilities are endless. I will wait for QM and see.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
You seek "THE TRUTH" G. Atheist like I do. But I dont think you're an atheist. Atheist do not search for TRUTH.
Wardoge56 4 years ago
Well, atheists do, in a scientific sense.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
a very good idea ;) and yes I went back an read the debate you and lefde had which is why I was tempted to leave that msg for him (which I hope he reads) it really seems sometimes as though those with strong faith have a built-in ignorance to deny anything that poses a threat to their beleifs. Oh well..anyways excellent video once again, and always nice to see another logical thinker out there. wish you the best.
TheFuror1191 4 years ago
Well, more videos coming up!
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
And as for lefde: you can argue your point till your blue in the mouth (or in this case until your fingers are sore) but nothing short of certified proof will persuade a logical thinker to abandon what we beleive to be true, but by all means go about your business and pray to whatever gods you need to to sleep at night, just don't feel too badly that not everyone needs a god.
TheFuror1191 4 years ago
Me and lefde had a major debate. I got tired in the end though as the definitions on empirical evidence did not get through...
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Excellent video Gnostic, and I completely agree with what you say in your profile about Atheism being a result and not a beleif. I've always trusted logic above all else. I've always beleived that the simplest most logical answer is often the right one, and it's far more logical that we created god and not the other way around.
TheFuror1191 4 years ago
Well, thank you. And yes, lets keep our explainations inside this world. ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
awesome
BARRYZIT0 4 years ago
Thank you.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
AW this song is great. We need Jesus. Now what is the title of the song????
drxclassic 4 years ago
The song is "we want your SOULD" by free*land from the peace not war vol.2 album. Its just 1/3 of it.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
that song is so freakin catchy. There was a video about new world order that was playing this song and it matched so well with this song. I was like "I can't stop shaking it." AHWHWHWH Just playing.
drxclassic 4 years ago
The should be easy to find on the net, the song has much more on it, and gets better towards the end.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
thank u Jesus bless.
drxclassic 4 years ago
No thank you.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
fantastic video. great song too.
Naut 4 years ago
Thank you. And thanks for the friend invite. I will check out your music later on.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Awesome vid!
lirpa69 4 years ago
Thank you ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
what song is this?
LOGICISGOD 4 years ago
The song is "we want your SOULD" by free*land from the peace not war vol.2 album. Its just 1/3 of it.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
The theory cannot leave room for ambiguity. A theory with ambiguis terms is no theory at all. everything about the theory has to be exactly clear. It can be a theory that is easy and short. mabye a basic principle of evolution? something that we can agree on quickly would be preferable
lefde 4 years ago
yes.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
The representatin was a small family. Not a priesthood. Early humans or pre humans did not make up the after life.
They BELIEVED they had discovered it.
You eat a banana because your hungry, but the banana is REAL not some self invented phsycological bull. The banana is a discovery.
lefde 4 years ago
I am sorry, your arguments does not entail any evidence or reference. I do not see how your banana has anything to do with the created notion of "the afterlife" which fearful people created in their minds to cope with their newfound nihilistic feelings.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
No the science of pschycology you have is not real... The afterlife can be thought of in many ways... like the moon was... at first people said to have doscovered the moon. some said it was a giant planet that could be landed on. Then the moon was landed on. The afterlife is like the moon. Some people believe it is a physical reality that can be accomplished. others believe differently. The banana is a symbol of REALITY.you pschycologically might "depend" on it, but it is nevertheless a REALITY
lefde 4 years ago
If people didn't beleive that the AFTERLIFE was a real truth. They would have no pleasure in doing the whole ceremony. It would be like jumping into a pool you know is empty. They believed they saw the water in the pool. Whether they were wrong is a different story. Just because water is a necessary substance to maintain life. Doesn't mean we invented it out of fear.
lefde 4 years ago
When a person COPES. it is necessary to use the elements of reality. If not the coping would eventually fall apart. It would have become a self destructive act of misguidance
lefde 4 years ago
They believed in it, yes. But of course it isn't real. We know what death is.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Death is simply an obstacle... We already have 135 year olds walking around, there could be 180 year olds or 1000 year olds or whatever. You believe in death right. How about crime scenes. Why is it that a good investigator can determine were the bullets flew, how many people participated. Even the pschycoligy of the killer....
lefde 4 years ago
The good investigator is the good scientist. There is no difference. Death may be halted. And gods may exist, and teapots in the sky. Proof is contemporary, and testable. Not science-fiction based on can-becomes.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I am not saying you should put a cap on your head and call yourself a jew. This is what you are saying: Since we currently can't teleport people that means nobody can or ever will. Since we can't do this then it will always be impossible. Good luck getting to the moon. By your view if it hasn't been done before it can't be done!!!!LOL
lefde 4 years ago
Nope. What I am saying is that with the current technology level and our understanding of QM we have no way to do anything, other then wait on the science. In the meantime I will work on my field and do my contribution. The science that is QP is important and follows the scientific method.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
This method will either prove or disprove. Maybe it proves some god one day? Then lets wait and see, and in the meantime I stick to what is known and work from there in baby steps. That is what I say. Always has. There is no god until proven.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
You have to have a little bit of imagination you know. Your scientific proof scheme is a little dull.
lefde 4 years ago
Science is dull. It works slowly and according to a series of tests and hypothesis' that must be checked and rechecked. Of course it is dull. I cannot jump from different philosophical fantasies without doing actual work!
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Prove the afterlife. When we die the electric and chemical activity in our brains stop and we are "back" where we was before we was born. We are nothing.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
The electrical activity thing is only one of the opinions on death. Just because electrical activity ceases doesn't mean that it can not become electrical in the future. It just means we have no current solution for the problem
lefde 4 years ago
I do not see the supernatural argument. Yours is a science-fiction argument, and does not relate to the needs to adapt psychologically to the fears induced by original nihilism. The argument that the body can be scientifically reincarnated, or cloned, is philosophical in nature and untestable at this time. Therefore not interesting in my studies.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Do you think the way a piece of glass that has been shattered can be known by looking at the evidence...
If so, you can be reconstructed after your death by piecing you back together the same way a class vase is pieced back together after it is shattered, obviously more precisely than that though. There are even ideas of teleportation with quantum mechanics. That is death and resurection in another part of the world.
lefde 4 years ago
Yes of course. In an open ended theory everything is possible. But it is still nothing more then science-fiction at best or philosophical masturbation at the worst. We know FAR to little about QM to make any wild speculations.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Oh, the dogma philosofical masterbation. PLEASE!
just because you don't understand something doesn't mean no one can. You are to deep into the mud!
Why do you deny everything that you cannot see with your own eyes!! I suppose algeria doesn't have a leader... no killling going on down there, nope... I didn't see it myself so it must be impossible!! Forget the the existence of socrates, he could not have existed unless I see him myself!!
lefde 4 years ago
Yep just working the baby steps... nothing says all those history documents werent forged... Yeh of course. there is no way the atomic bomb exists I havent tested it myself!!
lefde 4 years ago
Whatever man. You are not being serious. You are just defending yourself with little science dogmas. Be a real thinker, think the impossible
lefde 4 years ago
Do you not see the difference between actual provable occurrences in the real world, like Algeria, where I can travel to, which I have seen on tv, which I have read physical accounts on by real scientists and historians, and the claims of something unprovable, like aliens and gods? Mental masturbation without empirical basis is of no concern to me. Go talk with a philosophy major, I don't study the topic.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
how dare you. You know well that you don't have any basis to prove that everything you don't understand is impossible. You do believe it though... That is what kills your whole argument. You disbelieve everything that isn't laid out in front of your face. You put yourself behind your scientific excuses like a wallstreet stock broker runs under a roof to shield himself from the rain. The rain still exists. And when it rains it poors!
lefde 4 years ago
Buy an umbrella. expand your mind. your sector of science is only a tainted picter of a grander scheme
lefde 4 years ago
Yes, it is a part of all science. I do my work and then we add the pieces together.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
You have biases, you have mis conceptions about reality, instead of creating new methods to discern the truth you stick with the old. There is no science fiction in what I say. I was simply giving examples to open your mind a little. But apparently the number one rule of your science is: don't open your mind to other ideas... what a coincidence... What a similarity to religious dogmas!!
lefde 4 years ago
Evidence does not come from philosophical circular logic. Evidence needs sources outside of the mind, tangible in a sense, testable, verifiable. Have you ever considered the possibility that this is it? The material, energetic, QM world we live in is the whole? Why add without proof? I don't, I wait. Science is all I need, and all the dreams... well, they are pretty, but they don't impress me.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
religious people will tell you loads of what they consider to be proof. The scientific method is just a little game scientists play because it is the only game that is fun to them... QM and chemistry and physics are all based on observations-As the bibles defendors claim the bible is based on. OF course there are more observations to be had more things to be learned. in its infancy of course it isn't the whole truth
lefde 4 years ago
material and energetic? Both of those concepts are assumptions made for theoretical concepts.
Energy is electricity. Electrical current can be GENERATED. The world isn't energetic. electricity is energetic. And we can generate it using the world. Thus the world is seen as capable of harboring energy, not as energetic. MAtter is another issue. it has different meanings depending on the theory. There is no matter in the world. Theorists ASSUME that matter exists to elaborate on other issues.
lefde 4 years ago
no, I didn't mean electricity as in electrons but energy as in energy opposed to actual matter.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
You haven't understood the concept correctly you cannot understand what i'm saying without a more indepth explanation from me.
lefde 4 years ago
A game? The computer your using now is a product of this game. So is everything in our modern world. What religious people consider proof is subjective with no method to test its actual basis in objective reality.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
You are so stubborn. Here is the similarity between science and religion. Science is based on observed phenomena that is described using theories. Religion is also based on observed phenomena using written accounts of what happened. Either a scientist or a theologan can both lie about what they have observed or know about the world. There is no difference between the two. You say science is all immediately provable but it isn't.
lefde 4 years ago
It damn well isn't. If it was that would mean that no errors occur... You are trying to turn the world into a science experiment. Computers are not science. They are a product. Spoons are not science they are a product. SAME WITH rocks spears bows and arrows. they are not science. You want to say they are but they arent
lefde 4 years ago
You try to advertise science when like anything else. it is A method for an end. The end is always different and the means is always different. EVEN if there are METHODS. Science is no different from carpentry in that sense. Statistics are manipulated. Science is advertised as the holy grail. But that nonsense. Science, as is religion based on supposed observed accounts. Science people have misconceptions as do religios people. It is overwhelmingly clear that they do so in equal proportion.
lefde 4 years ago
No. Science does not stand still. There are no bibles. No paradigms that will stand forever if proven wrong. Unlike religions and their dogmas, with basis in scripture.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
So you are admiting that all of science will be proven wrong? If it will all be proven wrong why ever consider it correct in the first place? to enchant school children and highschoolers. To get them to 'become interested' If the truth is not in science theories then they will turn they're heads???? ah ha
lefde 4 years ago
Computers are a product of science. To debate this is ludicrous. Spoons are a product of metallurgy, it is a science. All these things are product of human reasoning through different scientific methods.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago