Thread: Convince me?

scientists are still goofy people who have learned from dated text books

Every textbook is a retextbook of a a retextbook of a textbook.

ask a scientist how a book is made. he is reciting from ,and he will look at you cross eyed

This whole exchange that has been going on here is very amusing.

Originally Posted by space-cadet

i think i bashed science again. hey they can't begin to explain who i am or what am i doing here. they're still in the dark ages

Yes they can, atleast the body. We have no clue WTF we are, maybe just trash that got thrown out. HUNNY TAKE OUT THE TRASH! yes dear. Life is 1 trash can, all we are is junk that got thrown out. I am a genius! i figured out life...thrown out parts in a trash can. Of course if there is 1 life to live only then sure, we can be trash in a trash can if that floats your boat. OH A PENNY! i'll make a wish.

Originally Posted by space-cadet

yes probably. they would silence a thing they could not understand.

You're pretty hostile to science.

Why is that? It's not like the concept is trying to hurt you or something.

Originally Posted by space-cadet

i think i bashed science again. hey they can't begin to explain who i am or what am i doing here. they're still in the dark ages

Yes they can.

Entirely.


You just wouldn't like the answer; so would decide to assert that there is something more important about you ie a soul etc.

Face reality.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Yes they can.

Entirely.


You just wouldn't like the answer; so would decide to assert that there is something more important about you ie a soul etc.

Face reality.

Funny, coming from the guy who said convince me...

OMG u d0nt bel1ve in teh gh0sts?!?! 0h n0es! teh gh0st 1s t0 h4unt u for teh rest of u l1ves!!!11!11!!one!11!eleven!1!!1!11

Lol, just for the sake of logic, you can't say like "oh, science cannot disprove the soul, so it exists" - that is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam (wikipedia is your friend).

What science says is one thing. If you believe it, or the way you selectively believe it (taking into cosideration only parts that support your opinions) is all up to you. Science is not an institution, it is a method for acquiring knowledge.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

lol space

There's no way to "measure" how much you love someone, but there is a way to measure and analyse what causes love and how it affects you.

space was right, in his own way, when he said science can't measure love.

Science can measure a chemical reaction in the brain. But is that what you call love? In science's point of view, then, the passionate love I could feel for someone is an illusion (doesn't exist within the physical realm). What's 'really' there is only the reaction. Isn't that sad?

Of course that's something which is evidently wrong. At least from my own experience (not objective experience), the feeling of love is hell real. much more real for me than the chemical reaction which "seems" to be the only true part of the story (in mainstream science's point of view).

LOOL

Where did any scientific study say that love is an illusion? It is as physical as any other thought you might have.
No, the reactions producing such as thign as love is not sad. It's quite breathtaking, to see the beautiful things that were created through natural laqs and nothing else.

Lol, you speak like science was the only one who could not "measure" love, but there is no way to do it. You can compare it to a scale, or determine how much of the love neurotransmitter is in your brain, but you cannot measure love in any way. You may say it's "weak" or "strong" (which is relative), but that's it.

Love is as real as the computer you used to post here

Isn't love just a bunch of chemicals going haywire in your brain? like dreaming is caused by DMT in your pineal gland.

"I chemical haywire you"

WTFWTFWTFWTFWTF!!!!! my pop can just tipped on it's own, no wind to push it, almost tipped over, just there spinning. I'm serious.

Originally Posted by polmc

What's 'really' there is only the reaction. Isn't that sad?

Nope. Sad is just a reaction, too and doesn't exist either, or something.

If I am not mistaken, the point of this thread is to convince Carôusoul of things like AP, the soul, Ghosts etc. etc. so saying things like:

Originally Posted by space-cadet

scientists are still goofy people who have learned from dated text books

are kinda pointless are they not?
Besides, you're kinda missing the point. Science does not exist to disprove love or make your life meaningless. Science exists to learn about things, and find out why.

So, we know, that when we see someone we love, the reason for us feeling so good in our physical bodies is because of the chemical haywire (for example). This doesn't make science the enemy, or bad, or stupid, or pointless, or anything other than science. It doesn't make it any less believable than God or the soul or religion or anything else.

I don't see the reason for hating science, no more than I see the reason for hating religion. They just exist. So, you don't like science's explanation for your existence? Get over yourself. Leave science alone. If you don't like it, ignore it.

And, in the light of having revealed the true meaning of this thread, Carôusoul, have you attempted any tutorials for AP or something that might convince you of something beyond science?

Actually if it's a chemical haywire in the brain that kinda supports no afterlife...afterlife is non brain, the chemical haywire IS brain, and yet we have love in the afterlife people say when our brains are no more, just our minds. Maybe it is not chemicals if that's the case, something else? meh.

I took back my approach kinda...i used to be obsessed with this and be like 'omg maybe there really is 1 life to live", i found a balance of science, and afterlife in my beliefs instead of being 1 sided i was turning into if that makes any sense.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOOL

Where did any scientific study say that love is an illusion? It is as physical as any other thought you might have.

Science implies that the 'real' part of the feeling is the physical one: the chemical reaction, the rest, the real feeling of love, just can't exist.

No, the reactions producing such as thign as love is not sad. It's quite breathtaking, to see the beautiful things that were created through natural laqs and nothing else.

It is sad, if that's the only thing love is considered.

Lol, you speak like science was the only one who could not "measure" love, but there is no way to do it.

Never did I say something like so.

I'm not saying science is lying, seriously. Of course the feeling depends on a chemical reaction. But that doesn't mean that's all there is. I believe science is right, but I also believe there has to be something which science is missing. And it can only be something it can't measure, which doesn't mean it ain't real.

Btw. is it necessary to start with a 'LOL' every time someone criticizes a belief of yours?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

i found a balance of science, and afterlife in my beliefs instead of being 1 sided i was turning into if that makes any sense.

Now that's somehow the way I feel as well.

@polmoc:

lol polmc... And why can't feelings be caused by chemical reactions? Why can't you feel "all the feeling of love" due to reactions going on in yoru brain? That is ridiculous.

Bah, love is not actually sad, but if that's how you see it, whatever.

Lol. If science can't measure something, it is not real. And I don't mean measure, like, measuring in numbers. I mean analysing the causes and aspects of things, such as love.

Heh where did anyone criticise my beliefs? For now people only criticised science. And I don't see any problem with the "lol" either, I consider it innofencive. It is just a way to start a sentence with a different topic.

And refering to Flanders' sentence I again call that "balance" selective belief.

@ LucidFlanders:

only because something is so-called not physical, it doesn't mean science cannot study it (if it existed of course). Science is not confined to "physical" things - it is confined to studying things with the scientifical method. There are a zillion of arguments as to why something "beyond" doesn't exist, such as, by what I understood from your post, a soul. That, because things you think are determined by the chemical reactions and processes that occur in your brain - not some random thing which isn't "physical", because philosophy says something "non-physical" cannot influence something physical - if it could, we would be able to study the "non-physical" through science. The "non-physical" could even exist, but it would be intangible with physical things, therefore making it completely disclosed from physical things (meaning there's no way for each to influence the other). But that is a complex topic.

It's not a chemical haywire in the brain that supports no afterlife, it's the complete lack of evidence for it, combined with so many contradictios in it.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Perception altering drugs do just that; alter your perception; they don't show you anything new about the external world.

There are hundreds of altered perceptions - love, joy, depression, fear etc. Are these also not real? Do they not show you anything new?

brumans don't making intended mistakes

You know what Carou meant by his sentence, and you know that there is a difference between drugs and emotions. The first ones causes hallucinations, while the latter one only changes your behaviour.

You can't say that the things you see while stoned are real lol.. or are you?

[QUOTE=Kromoh;651937]@polmoc:

lol polmc... And why can't feelings be caused by chemical reactions? Why can't you feel "all the feeling of love" due to reactions going on in yoru brain? That is ridiculous.

I never said chemical reaction and love weren't related.

Bah, love is not actually sad, but if that's how you see it, whatever.

I never said love was sad either.

The way you back up against what I said in earlier post is changing the meaning of my words, that's not a fair discussion.

Reread my previous post. I never said anything false. Just stated facts and added that it was sad to reduce something like love to just chemical reactions, it's an opinion, never did I say love was sad.

It's not a chemical haywire in the brain that supports no afterlife, it's the complete lack of evidence for it, combined with so many contradictios in it.

I was saying love is a chemical haywire, that's why people act crazy. They say in the afterlife it's all about love, we cease to have a brain, only our mind. So this kind of supports no afterlife, the whole love brain thing. Spirits they say love is their number 1 thing, they love everything etc, how can you love if you have no brain? maybe love isn't a brain thing, maybe it's a mind thing, but this is when you need to know if the brain is different from the mind which we don't know right now, so any talk is pretty much moot intill we know for sure if the mind and brain are 1 thing or different things.

lol Who said we don't know if the mind isn't only the work of the brain? All scientifical evidence so far leads to it. That's my main point about it.