Yes I was equating science to a belief, as my first post in reply to yours was established by the shock horror experienced by yourself in total disbelief that stellar stars had now gone solo.
I'm not highly religious at all, even though it would appear that anyone who does not go along with science and all it offers us is somehow religious. And again I should mention...I AM NOT ANTI-SCIENCE...lol
I also am not an atheist either . Although atheists do believe in something if not anything as they believe in nothing. And anyway atheism principles are mostly related to 'life after death' and not the 'living' status of being.
'You must understand that there are people who simply do not live their lives "believing" in anything. They accept facts, but that is not belief. Belief is the acceptance of fiction, not fact.'
That's right; they prefer to see what is in front of their very own eyes, as opposed to thinking otherwise. Fact is still a belief, whereas I may assume you are confusing faith with belief perhaps? Maybe you are the closet religious one lol.
Yes I'm right! At least you got something right at last!
Although you are bordering on DUBYA speech, it's plain to see where you're coming from in your approach of self fear and lack of actual intellect in any manner of thinking. You can't back up anything unless it's via a hazy interlude of so called 'practicality of logic'. Not that much different to religion really.
And as for me not being very knowledgeable, again you are right. Congratulations to yourself, as you will also know (if you care to admit it) that science is also the biggest illusion of our time that claims to have knowledge of what it feels it understands at that particular time. (And I'm not talking about 'physical touchable' science, in case you get carried away again).
Science will only ever understand what it understands, within the capabilities of the mind of those who understand its boundaries. And as you know, science will only ever attempt to tread where it feels safe, in compiling an understanding for all. It would never attempt to unleash itself on areas that would cause mass hysteria. Science has always had confines to work within based on the overriding authorities that set out these guidelines.
If science really wanted to take the lead, it would move forward with alternatives instead of creating hazards for itself.
Anyway, before you accuse me of rambling on again lol. I will rest here and await your next reply. Which BTW I always relish.
'Well, it's not a particularly surprising response. I understand the human capacity for reason as the force preventing us from living like animals and grunting in amazement at fires and moonlight. Responding with distaste for the suggestion that this capacity should perpetuate its past errors in judgment, such as religion and astrology, is pretty predictable.'
I also understand your need to protect what you feel is 'right' just because you read it in a text book and stand by it until proved otherwise by someone else. But alas, I feel you have deluded yourself with your perception to my first reply to your post. Maybe it wasn't that clear and logical for you to see? A time where you had to use your mind instead of logic perhaps. Truth be known, I am not into religion or dancing around camp fires grunting and was in no way insinuating otherwise.
'Next time, maybe try and reply with some attempt to answer the post to which you're replying.'
I have no answers; answers are science perceiving understandable concepts as being correct and acceptable for that moment in time, in an ever changing world. I am merely passing comment and expanding my comprehension of what people see as science. I thought that was quite logical, even coming from someone so sceptical & cynical such as myself.
'And BTW, I love the idea of anti-science people using computers and the Internet to bash science. But hey, maybe digital communication isn't really a product of inestimable numbers of electrochemical reactions that we cannot perceive directly. Perhaps it's a manifestation of the Universal Human Spirit Communication Vibration, or God, or angels, or infinitesimally small unicorns that travel at near lightspeed with bags of e-mail strapped to their backs. It's fun to think of ideas when you don't have to try to find logical bases for them, isn't it?'
I feel you are getting science muddled up with technology. We were talking about single stars as opposed to stellar companions. And just for the record I'm not anti-science and nor am I pro science. What's gonna happen next? Is my keyboard not part of my computer as once thought? Just as those single stars are no longer parts of a stellar community.
Our minds are ever changing, just as science is. My main problem being with all science folk, is that they rely on all they read from the founders of scientific fact from scientists. Which in turn appear to comply with their usual strategy of performing u-turns on their beliefs when they find an alternative understanding a few years down the line.
Science is on the brink of becoming as dogmatic as Catholicism. And as religion has screwed up this world, so will science. Or should I say....religion has screwed the minds of people and science will in turn destroy the planet. As most science projects are funded by governments who are religious nuts. Catch 22? Or just two complete opposites not really being that different.
No doubt you will try and reply to this with the usual blarney chattering's and mind murmurings in a language I will have to decode. Strange how science is so logical, yet most science buffs feel the need to go half way round the work to explain such a simplistic entity.
Well, nothing suprises me with science. Just as your reply didn't suprise me any either. Although I'm giving you a tad too much credit here. Next time, maybe try and reply with some sense of who you really are!
It wasn't that long ago when scientists of old thought the world was flat. And I'm sure they were scientists by their standards at least. People used to hang on to every word they uttered. Things haven't moved on that much with the illusion of intellect from a scientific mind.
As with anything scientific, unless you can touch it, it then fails to be recognised. Science is an illusion for proving the unknown to be fact, by removing all doubt and fear from the mind of civilization. It happened when mankind lost all meaning of being 'one'. It ain't rocket science ya know!
And as for becoming a creationist, well...I think you have just found something in yourself. Even if you did make it sound like a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe aliens have taken the plug out on the arctic sea bed and are just having a laugh with us.
The most intelligent writing I've seen on here for a long time! Someone at last speaking sense in this world.
Yes I was equating science to a belief, as my first post in reply to yours was established by the shock horror experienced by yourself in total disbelief that stellar stars had now gone solo. I'm not highly religious at all, even though it would appear that anyone who does not go along with science and all it offers us is somehow religious. And again I should mention...I AM NOT ANTI-SCIENCE...lol I also am not an atheist either . Although atheists do believe in something if not anything as they believe in nothing. And anyway atheism principles are mostly related to 'life after death' and not the 'living' status of being. 'You must understand that there are people who simply do not live their lives "believing" in anything. They accept facts, but that is not belief. Belief is the acceptance of fiction, not fact.' That's right; they prefer to see what is in front of their very own eyes, as opposed to thinking otherwise. Fact is still a belief, whereas I may assume you are confusing faith with belief perhaps? Maybe you are the closet religious one lol.
Yes I'm right! At least you got something right at last! Although you are bordering on DUBYA speech, it's plain to see where you're coming from in your approach of self fear and lack of actual intellect in any manner of thinking. You can't back up anything unless it's via a hazy interlude of so called 'practicality of logic'. Not that much different to religion really. And as for me not being very knowledgeable, again you are right. Congratulations to yourself, as you will also know (if you care to admit it) that science is also the biggest illusion of our time that claims to have knowledge of what it feels it understands at that particular time. (And I'm not talking about 'physical touchable' science, in case you get carried away again). Science will only ever understand what it understands, within the capabilities of the mind of those who understand its boundaries. And as you know, science will only ever attempt to tread where it feels safe, in compiling an understanding for all. It would never attempt to unleash itself on areas that would cause mass hysteria. Science has always had confines to work within based on the overriding authorities that set out these guidelines. If science really wanted to take the lead, it would move forward with alternatives instead of creating hazards for itself. Anyway, before you accuse me of rambling on again lol. I will rest here and await your next reply. Which BTW I always relish.
'Well, it's not a particularly surprising response. I understand the human capacity for reason as the force preventing us from living like animals and grunting in amazement at fires and moonlight. Responding with distaste for the suggestion that this capacity should perpetuate its past errors in judgment, such as religion and astrology, is pretty predictable.' I also understand your need to protect what you feel is 'right' just because you read it in a text book and stand by it until proved otherwise by someone else. But alas, I feel you have deluded yourself with your perception to my first reply to your post. Maybe it wasn't that clear and logical for you to see? A time where you had to use your mind instead of logic perhaps. Truth be known, I am not into religion or dancing around camp fires grunting and was in no way insinuating otherwise. 'Next time, maybe try and reply with some attempt to answer the post to which you're replying.' I have no answers; answers are science perceiving understandable concepts as being correct and acceptable for that moment in time, in an ever changing world. I am merely passing comment and expanding my comprehension of what people see as science. I thought that was quite logical, even coming from someone so sceptical & cynical such as myself. 'And BTW, I love the idea of anti-science people using computers and the Internet to bash science. But hey, maybe digital communication isn't really a product of inestimable numbers of electrochemical reactions that we cannot perceive directly. Perhaps it's a manifestation of the Universal Human Spirit Communication Vibration, or God, or angels, or infinitesimally small unicorns that travel at near lightspeed with bags of e-mail strapped to their backs. It's fun to think of ideas when you don't have to try to find logical bases for them, isn't it?' I feel you are getting science muddled up with technology. We were talking about single stars as opposed to stellar companions. And just for the record I'm not anti-science and nor am I pro science. What's gonna happen next? Is my keyboard not part of my computer as once thought? Just as those single stars are no longer parts of a stellar community. Our minds are ever changing, just as science is. My main problem being with all science folk, is that they rely on all they read from the founders of scientific fact from scientists. Which in turn appear to comply with their usual strategy of performing u-turns on their beliefs when they find an alternative understanding a few years down the line. Science is on the brink of becoming as dogmatic as Catholicism. And as religion has screwed up this world, so will science. Or should I say....religion has screwed the minds of people and science will in turn destroy the planet. As most science projects are funded by governments who are religious nuts. Catch 22? Or just two complete opposites not really being that different. No doubt you will try and reply to this with the usual blarney chattering's and mind murmurings in a language I will have to decode. Strange how science is so logical, yet most science buffs feel the need to go half way round the work to explain such a simplistic entity.
Well, nothing suprises me with science. Just as your reply didn't suprise me any either. Although I'm giving you a tad too much credit here. Next time, maybe try and reply with some sense of who you really are!
It wasn't that long ago when scientists of old thought the world was flat. And I'm sure they were scientists by their standards at least. People used to hang on to every word they uttered. Things haven't moved on that much with the illusion of intellect from a scientific mind. As with anything scientific, unless you can touch it, it then fails to be recognised. Science is an illusion for proving the unknown to be fact, by removing all doubt and fear from the mind of civilization. It happened when mankind lost all meaning of being 'one'. It ain't rocket science ya know! And as for becoming a creationist, well...I think you have just found something in yourself. Even if you did make it sound like a joke.