God's 14 bil. years of violence.

[Only_]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I do not understand the comparison of science to religion. I feel, apples and oranges here. My thoughts on that, of course. Here's the thing, and bringing up the word truth. (And if those who know me, I'm a believer, unique in it, but a believer never the less.) Looking at religions and their beliefs and tenets and such, (including in my own) one cannot fully see these things as the full truth, if it hasn't been proven as the full objective proof. Science, I feel one can.

 

Materialism isn't science to me, at all. It's a worldview. It's the belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. There is no proof of this, no more than religion. It's based on assumptions and reductionist thinking, that since we have made scientific discoveries about the material Universe, everything that exist should be the material world. There can be nothing else, which I think is absolute nonesense. Some people take this view to the level of dogma.

Edited October 22, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[GlitterRose]

3 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Materialism isn't science to me, at all. It's a worldview. It's the belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. There is no objective proof of this, no more than religion. It's based on assumptions and reductionist thinking, that since we have made scientific discoveries about the material Universe, everything that exist should be the material world. There can be nothing else, which I think is absolute nonesense.

Science has that limitation that it can only examine, well, what it can examine. 

So scientists can't really make any claims about the spiritual. 

[Truthseeker007]

17 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Ah, good story Truth007. I shall check that link out.

And the famous James Bond- I am reminded of the final episode of "Mad Men" season 5 and the great Nancy Sinatra Bond song "You Only Live Twice"

 

Thanks!

[Will Due]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

The truth is the truth. 

 

Yes, and here's where the subjective trumps the objective and makes needing objective proof irrelevant with so many things, outside of the only place where it must matter objectively, science.

The truth is the truth regardless of proof.

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I do not understand the comparison of science to religion. I feel, apples and oranges here. My thoughts on that, of course. Here's the thing, and bringing up the word truth. (And if those who know me, I'm a believer, unique in it, but a believer never the less.) Looking at religions and their beliefs and tenets and such, (including in my own) one cannot fully see these things as the full truth, if it hasn't been proven as the full objective proof. Science, I feel one can. 

If using religions, (even my own) and compare it to Davos's dopamine points, I may not feel strongly the same way to Davos's points, but I do entertain the thought, he might have more evidence to prove it, then someone religious's points. (and yes, even my own) I and others might find things like Davos's points disturbing to themselves, (like I might, sorry Davos) but I feel, it's disturbing, because it is more provable a situation and that can be found uncomfortable in it's own. 

The truth is the truth. 

 

It think the truth is that we really don't know the truth. We have many opinions and ideas but It seems to me almost everything taught to us is inversion of what the reality really is. I could give loads of examples for there are many. Its almost like the old saying if you see a politician's lips moving he is lying.

[Nostrodumbass]

From reading the replies to the topic I realise that there are some very inteligent and highly informed people here, but I can't help thinking that those qualities may be detrimental to finding truth.

Would someone that can't comprehend advanced scientific theorems, or the complexities of gnosis be less able to have a relationship/understanding of god/s?

Mmm, think about it!

[Stubbly_Dooright]

6 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I do not understand the comparison of science to religion. I feel, apples and oranges here. My thoughts on that, of course. Here's the thing, and bringing up the word truth. (And if those who know me, I'm a believer, unique in it, but a believer never the less.) Looking at religions and their beliefs and tenets and such, (including in my own) one cannot fully see these things as the full truth, if it hasn't been proven as the full objective proof. Science, I feel one can.

 

Materialism isn't science to me, at all. It's a worldview. It's the belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

I never mentioned materialism. And I don't get how some seem to label materialism within the science context. 

Science:Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1][2]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

Materialism: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

I do not see how one is the other. 

I'm talking science as being seen as a religion, which I don't, and don't get why some do. 

Quote

There is no proof of this, no more than religion. It's based on assumptions and reductionist thinking, that since we have made scientific discoveries about the material Universe, everything that exist should be the material world. There can be nothing else, which I think is absolute nonesense. Some people take this view to the level of dogma.

Refer to what I posted as the science definition. You seem to talk about materialism, in which I didn't bring up. And science, to me, is different, and something that is not built entirely on faith, which religions are built on mostly. 

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

The truth is the truth. 

 

Yes, and here's where the subjective trumps the objective and makes needing objective proof irrelevant with so many things, outside of the only place where it must matter objectively, science.

The truth is the truth regardless of proof.

I strongly disagree. I think, I should have mentioned more here. 

If I put the definition to truth: the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

Let's look at it this way, if someone wants to embark on something and wants to make sure it's true, that means it's true to it being true in it's actual evidence. That means, they would hate to embark on a path, they thought was true, when it's not, if they didn't have evidence. 

When I meant 'truth is truth' that means the truth that has evidence to back it up as truth. To show it to be true for every one, or to make sure it's objective truth, you need evidence to back it up. Someone's subjective truth, more than likely, won't work for everyone. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

6 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

It think the truth is that we really don't know the truth. We have many opinions and ideas but It seems to me almost everything taught to us is inversion of what the reality really is. I could give loads of examples for there are many. Its almost like the old saying if you see a politician's lips moving he is lying.

Well, truth to me, is the truth, if it's shown as the truth. I believe in the evidence. If we don't know if it's really true, then it's not entirely true. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Nostrodumbass said:

Would someone that can't comprehend advanced scientific theorems, or the complexities of gnosis be less able to have a relationship/understanding of god/s?

I find that an interesting question, even more so, because it's either dealing with someone who uses evidence to get at the truth, and then someone else who sees things spiritually. I think both can have a relationship, it's in the eye of the beholder. 

[Nostrodumbass]

6 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I find that an interesting question, even more so, because it's either dealing with someone who uses evidence to get at the truth, and then someone else who sees things spiritually. I think both can have a relationship, it's in the eye of the beholder. 

The way I see it is that some of us are able to break free from the sea of unknowns and fly up into a spiritual place, while others are left tilling the ground that is evidence based information, trying to grow our trees of knowledge that eventually reach upwards to that same spiritual place. Some are just lost at sea.

Please excuse the symbolism, this just reminded me of Genesis.

[Davros of Skaro]

18 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If using religions, (even my own) and compare it to Davos's dopamine points, I may not feel strongly the same way to Davos's points, but I do entertain the thought, he might have more evidence to prove it, then someone religious's points. (and yes, even my own) I and others might find things like Davos's points disturbing to themselves, (like I might, sorry Davos) but I feel, it's disturbing, because it is more provable a situation and that can be found uncomfortable in it's own. 

The truth is the truth.

If I could change the title of my thread "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It Feels Good"? It would be to "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It's A Motivational Thing". This is because I discovered that Dopamine is related to a wide range of addictive behaviors. 

The neuroscience I bring to the table does not negate a paranormal reality. It does show how fallible people are, can be a perpetual roadblock to themselves, and others.

 

[eight bits]

Davros! You've discovered that human behavior is complicated. At last.

Well done.

 

[Davros of Skaro]

On 10/21/2017 at 11:08 AM, ChaosRose said:

It is very true that many addicts kick their habits by adopting religious fundamentalism. 

It can be a substitute. 

They simply trade addictions.

Christians often attribute kicking addictions as miraculous proof of their faith. When pointed out that the same thing happens for some converting to Islam, they become tongue tied.

It's the power of the mind. There's secular tools to redirect negative behavior. It's a totally different world from the ancestors we evolved from lived in.

[Davros of Skaro]

25 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Davros! You've discovered that human behavior is complicated. At last.

Well done.

 

I never doubted it.

Get your paintbrush ready.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

7 hours ago, Nostrodumbass said:

14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I find that an interesting question, even more so, because it's either dealing with someone who uses evidence to get at the truth, and then someone else who sees things spiritually. I think both can have a relationship, it's in the eye of the beholder. 

The way I see it is that some of us are able to break free from the sea of unknowns and fly up into a spiritual place, while others are left tilling the ground that is evidence based information, trying to grow our trees of knowledge that eventually reach upwards to that same spiritual place. Some are just lost at sea.

Well, I could see that in the way you worded it.      I don't know, who exactly falls into each category. For me, I do not think it matters how one walks the path of spiritual or knowledge, or both, but either ways, it depends on the person who can do it, and who wants to do it. I fully think, one can do one of the three, two outta three, all three, in the way you described it in blooming out in knowledge. I also think, there are obstacles within each person, and it's how they handle it too. And even within that, it's how a person processes it, or might not want to. I think that it boils down to who goes about it willingly, or doesn't go about willingly. Kind of like how you describe it of them being lost. And if others have a hard time processing it at first, (like me) that might look like they can't, or they have to attempt it again, but is still excited on the promise of knowledge. 

Just wanted to remind that, it's the person, and it doesn't matter what the path is. 

Quote

Please excuse the symbolism, this just reminded me of Genesis.

Ok, but as I'm a secular raised individual, (not really knowledge in all of that is Genesis as you put it, I have a different thought in looking at it and being reminded of Genesis.     

6 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

The neuroscience I bring to the table does not negate a paranormal reality. It does show how fallible people are, can be a perpetual roadblock to themselves, and others.

I have always felt that you didn't rule it out.   (well also, again, it takes me a bit to get the full gist of something, I hope you'll excuse my 'slowness'  ) I do thank you for saying this. And I agree with you a lot on this. In the way, I see so many fall prey to quick 'stimulation' and think something else.  

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Davros! You've discovered that human behavior is complicated. At last.

Well done.

 

3 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Christians often attribute kicking addictions as miraculous proof of their faith. When pointed out that the same thing happens for some converting to Islam, they become tongue tied.

It's the power of the mind. There's secular tools to redirect negative behavior. It's a totally different world from the ancestors we evolved from lived in.

I'm sure, there are many stories, ( I have a lot in my work ) of none-believers who kicked their habits while still staying none-believers.  

 

[Truthseeker007]

17 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, truth to me, is the truth, if it's shown as the truth. I believe in the evidence. If we don't know if it's really true, then it's not entirely true. 

It also depends on the subject matter. For example we can't see electricity current but we know it is there when you stick your finger in the socket. Now if you are watching the news and an "official source" says GMO food is good for you or give a pregnant woman a flu shot. I have a hard time believing that although it came from a so called official source who say it is a fact. Sometimes evidence can be falsified also in many cases it is.

[GoldenWolf]

9 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

If I could change the title of my thread "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It Feels Good"? It would be to "The Holy Dopamine Ghost: It's A Motivational Thing". This is because I discovered that Dopamine is related to a wide range of addictive behaviors. 

The neuroscience I bring to the table does not negate a paranormal reality. It does show how fallible people are, can be a perpetual roadblock to themselves, and others.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/05/foxsexpert-orgasms-during-childbirth-it-happens.html

Childbirth is painful enough I can only imagine,  What would it be like without that G-Spot?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

t also depends on the subject matter. For example we can't see electricity current but we know it is there when you stick your finger in the socket. 

 Well, that’s the thing. There is the  evidence the truth is there, like your finger in the socket to prove that electricity is true.  And other ways of measuring electricity by scientific means, right?

 Despite thinking about, that it depends on the subject, the subject is always eventually proven with evidence, then yes the subject is true. 

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Now if you are watching the news and an "official source" says GMO food is good for you or give a pregnant woman a flu shot.

 I’m having a hard time understanding the gist of this sentence, it seems unfinished. 

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

I have a hard time believing that although it came from a so called official source who say it is a fact. Sometimes evidence can be falsified also in many cases it is.

 Yes, you have to be concerned where the facts are coming from and that it could be a source that tends to falsify facts.  The point is is, after sources have proven the objective truth, there you go. There’s the truth. I always felt you should always look for facts in more than one place. 

 I believe in the end, it’s the objective facts, the objective evidence, will make the actual truth. You just can’t say, well it could be fake might as well  say it’s the truth because there’s a possibility you won’t find the facts. 

[Will Due]

@Stubbly_Dooright

You already told me that you "strongly" disagree that the truth is the truth regardless if there's proof.

I'm a bit surprised that you said that Stubbly.

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

That's what I meant, that just because there's no proof of truth, it doesn't mean something isn't true.

Proof is irrelevant to whether or not the truth is the truth. We're just limited in our knowledge of what's true.

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 Well, that’s the thing. There is the  evidence the truth is there, like your finger in the socket to prove that electricity is true.  And other ways of measuring electricity by scientific means, right?

 Despite thinking about, that it depends on the subject, the subject is always eventually proven with evidence, then yes the subject is true. 

 I’m having a hard time understanding the gist of this sentence, it seems unfinished. 

 Yes, you have to be concerned where the facts are coming from and that it could be a source that tends to falsify facts.  The point is is, after sources have proven the objective truth, there you go. There’s the truth. I always felt you should always look for facts in more than one place. 

 I believe in the end, it’s the objective facts, the objective evidence, will make the actual truth. You just can’t say, well it could be fake might as well  say it’s the truth because there’s a possibility you won’t find the facts. 

I really can't disagree with anything you said there. All very good points.

[Truthseeker007]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

@Stubbly_Dooright

You already told me that you "strongly" disagree that the truth is the truth regardless if there's proof.

I'm a bit surprised that you said that Stubbly.

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

That's what I meant, that just because there's no proof of truth, it doesn't mean something isn't true.

Proof is irrelevant to whether or not the truth is the truth. We're just limited in our knowledge of what's true.

 

 

I like the point you made that there are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. I would like to elaborate also that there are many things that have been discovered but have been suppressed and kept from the average person. One example is that we already could have free energy but the Morgans and Rockefellers couldn't make money off of free energy so the Tesla technology was suppressed.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

You already told me that you "strongly" disagree that the truth is the truth regardless if there's proof.

I'm a bit surprised that you said that Stubbly.

No, I thought my point was, the truth is the truth, if it's something you can back up to be the truth. (I may have not worded my thoughts here correctly.) I'm just saying that, one can not conclude something is the truth, despite not having the proof. Or, in a more closer thought, or that you cannot dispute it. It's like a rock, tree, a person, weather patterns, etc. will be truth, because it is something that has shown evidence. I don't think my point was that, a truth is the truth, even if there's not enough evidence. I think, to see an example of what I'm trying to say, is that in actually, a rock is a rock. For a rock is actual and provable, and like there's a rainbow, like there's are things that have a 100 percent ration of being provable, despite who sees it. 

If looking at the subject diety, to me, doesn't seem to have the characteristic to have 100 proof. I don't the truth in that. Kind of like, growing up secular, what is truth is a house, cars, food, clothing, furniture, but not religious rules and deities. 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

There are many things that are true that we're not aware of. There are many true things that exist that we haven't discovered yet. Like how the harnessing and generation of electricity once was.

Well, yes, and this is something I have spoken about. But, I do believe, I have also said, that for things that have the possibility of being true in the future, as things of today have been found to be true today, but not years ago, but I wouldn't negate totally that they didn't exist, but I also didn't state it definitely that they must exist. Like now, I entertain the idea what we can't now, we'll understand tomorrow. But for now, I'm not dismissing them, but can't objectively see it now, either. (And it also matters on how we view them too. ) 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

That's what I meant, that just because there's no proof of truth, it doesn't mean something isn't true.

Proof is irrelevant to whether or not the truth is the truth. We're just limited in our knowledge of what's true.

 

Well, I think we're thinking in two different semantics here. I'm not saying the truth is the truth, so there for I believe. In fact, if I believe or not believe, is irrelevant. The truth, in it all, is the truth. Is various religions and their deities like that? 

I think, it's how one looks at it, and how they want someone else to look at it. (Like not questioning the space floating tea pot is there, or Schrodinger's cat in the box, or being worried over it's existence, but the fact that if they have been proven to be there, then they're there.) But, my point is, I'm going entertain the possibility of the cat or the teapot, but I have no evidence to prove to others. As, it can't be proven to me, if someone else has no evidence. 

Look, one can say, that they have no proof, but they know it as their truth, so I should believe it. No, I don't have to. And a different reverse to that, I don't expect anyone to believe me, if all I have is my subjective proof. I'm trying to point out is, that one can't change around what truth is, if that truth has the possibility to be proven untrue. 

What do you think, Will? Does your truth have the chance of being proven untrue? 

 

[Will Due]

29 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Does your truth have the chance of being proven untrue? 

Of course not. It's not my truth. 

The truth is, the truth's truth.

Belief in it, proof of it, is irrelevant. 

The truth is the truth. 

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Does your truth have the chance of being proven untrue? 

Of course not. It's not my truth. 

(   This is where, I get to play with your mind!!!  ) But, Will, Sweetcheeks! I just told you, it's your truth. So, I was hoping to see if you consider your truth as provable or unprovable.   

Quote

The truth is, the truth's truth.

Belief in it, proof of it, is irrelevant. 

The truth is the truth. 

Well, I think you're getting it. 

Though,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but who should believe it? Should any human believe in it? 

(Yeah, I know, I think I went off the deep end. Did I just jet really transdental.............. transdentle...........Did I get far out?!?!?      

[Davros of Skaro]

18 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have always felt that you didn't rule it out.   (well also, again, it takes me a bit to get the full gist of something, I hope you'll excuse my 'slowness'  ) I do thank you for saying this. And I agree with you a lot on this. In the way, I see so many fall prey to quick 'stimulation' and think something else.  

Ever since I was a child I was interested in the paranormal, and strange tales. 

I just found it to be covered with tons of manure.

18 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I'm sure, there are many stories, ( I have a lot in my work ) of none-believers who kicked their habits while still staying none-believers.  

Jesus gave them a freebie.