New ATS Survey: Origins & Evolution

page: 11
78
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Money will always exist. In fact, I would not be surprised to soon see a move to make human energy INTO a currency.

The average human is only loving and caring when they are raised to be so. Otherwise, if they are raised another way, then that too becomes the average. Humans are animals. And animals can be trained. The saying goes, Humans are the only species capable of modifying their own nature and stopping, and even reversing, social and physical decay.

Logic? Logically you just explained it yourself. And that's why up until the Buddha in the East, and Christ in the west, people did not have much compassion beyond the people they knew. It wasn't until we discovered that we should be compassionate did we actually start to be. It was not part of our nature, beyond the evolutionary need to protect those we know for the sake of the community's well being. For ones before, people threw out the sick and elderly for the sake of their own well being.

Now today we have a better picture of logic. Logically I'd like to be helped when I'm dying, so I'll help you when you are. But this idea was nonexistent a few thousand years ago.

The heart is not what makes us human. It is the mind. Dolphins and whales have just as much, if not more, compassion for other things as we do. Of course, for them it's by nature. For us, we have to learn. All you have to do is go to a preschool and watch kids make fun of the weakest link to know that it is not our nature to be compassionate. But we benefit from being able to conquer our own nature. That's probably also what makes us human. Knowing what evolution has programmed us to do, can in fact be wrong.

Go back a few thousand years, and compassion did not exist. Love was borderline extinct. Men stole women from one tribe without a second thought, and women accepted that fate without a second thought. People were bad. They raped, they pillage, they even exterminated most of the other humanoid species on this world, if they weren't raping them.

About 50,000 years ago behavioral modernity started to evolve. And people began understanding very lightly this thing called compassion. But even then, it was not universal. it was only to those people knew. fast forward about 45,000 years to The Buddha and Christ, and we see the first examples of universal compassion.

Any species that takes 250,000 years to learn about compassion clearly does not have it in its nature.


Yes humanity tries. And good they do. But to return to all the way back when. This neither proves we were created by anything, nor that compassion is part of our nature.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
you can't be scientifically minded, and believe in a supernatural entity. Nor can you be scientifically minded, and believe the Universe was all created in one instance, with a big bang.


This statement piqued my curiosity, and I have to ask the universal question - why? Why would you think that? Is it written in the Big Book of Science Rules - "Thou shalt not admit of the possibility of anything thou cans't see with thine own eyes"?

Have you ever actually met a real live scientist?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

This statement piqued my curiosity, and I have to ask the universal question - why? Why would you think that? Is it written in the Big Book of Science Rules - "Thou shalt not admit of the possibility of anything thou cans't see with thine own eyes"?

Have you ever actually met a real live scientist?



Meet them all the time ... have you? a real one? not a fake "stole it from his student" kind? Or bought it from a poor brasilian, type? There are more of those, than you can imagine.

Seriously, if you believe in a deiety ... there no longer is a cause and effect situation. There is a "beginning". And that beginning, can be at any time ... you accept an ending to the search fro the causal effect. The moment you think there is a deiety, or a "supernatural entity", you are biased to your research. You might want to say, that if you are not ... you are also biased, and my answer is NO. Because if you are true to your research, and you search for the natural even of causal effect, without any God being there. In the end, you'd end up finding God, if he existed. But if you already know he is there, you "cut short" your search.

So, in effect, it is a bad thing to have a religious motivation as a scientist. But also take note, that I never said what "sort" of religion. And also understand, that I just stated previously ... that to me, "believing" in Big Bag, is the same as "believing" in God. The difference in only semantic definition of your deiety.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

The heart is not what makes us human. It is the mind. Dolphins and whales have just as much, if not more, compassion for other things as we do. Of course, for them it's by nature. For us, we have to learn. All you have to do is go to a preschool and watch kids make fun of the weakest link to know that it is not our nature to be compassionate. But we benefit from being able to conquer our own nature. That's probably also what makes us human. Knowing what evolution has programmed us to do, can in fact be wrong.



I'd say we are forged through the fire of pain and sorrow. And it's that ability, that when we see another man bleed, that we feel our own pain and sorrow, from our memories and the urge to provide others with the aid, we felt the need for. That is compassion ...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Yes that is compassion, but not all of us feel it the same way. When I see people hurt I help. But there isn't always something in me that says to help. Sometimes, there is no feeling. I just know that's wrong, because I was taught that way.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Money will always exist. In fact, I would not be surprised to soon see a move to make human energy INTO a currency.


Hahaha! If You add to the system what money represents, You no longer need money. In fact, if You remove the cost of energy up and down the line, You find that what is left is free. That's why adding plenum energy would remove the need for money. You can say money will always exist - and that will be true as long as the plenum energy and its extraction methods are suppressed and hidden. The elite KNOW They will become equal to everyOne else should We have the ability to draw Our own energy for free.


The average human is only loving and caring when they are raised to be so.


LOL! Um. We're talking of the AVERAGE here and it will be only one thing. The AVERAGE Human Being is loving and caring. The BULK of Humanity is loving and caring, else so many would not contribute to relief efforts, community causes, and so on.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


A lot of those people contribute so they're name is on it, usually to mask the evils they've done in life, or make themselves feel better.

There's a simple reason why this so-called free energy will not change anything. Because you can simply have a user tax.

Money exists. It always will exists. Because people want. And even when they have all they have, they want more. And there has never been a moment in human history where this was proven false.

Even in a world run by robots, the repairman still wants money for his job.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Meet them all the time ... have you? a real one? not a fake "stole it from his student" kind? Or bought it from a poor brasilian, type? There are more of those, than you can imagine.


Yup. Astronomers, biologists, and paleontologists primarily. A couple of psychologists. That's why I can say with all confidence that your initial statement was incorrect.

Now in fairness, I have my doubts that psychology is really "science", but one of my ex's used to do experiments as a psych grad student, so I suppose they at least try to keep up appearances. Her brand of psychology leaned more towards the nuts and bolts of brain function, and less towards the "lay down on the sofa and tell me about your childhood" voodoo science variety.



Seriously, if you believe in a deiety ... there no longer is a cause and effect situation. There is a "beginning". And that beginning, can be at any time ... you accept an ending to the search fro the causal effect.


Negative, There is no effect without cause, deity or not. A beginning is not a cause - it's a beginning.



The moment you think there is a deiety, or a "supernatural entity", you are biased to your research. You might want to say, that if you are not ... you are also biased, and my answer is NO. Because if you are true to your research, and you search for the natural even of causal effect, without any God being there. In the end, you'd end up finding God, if he existed. But if you already know he is there, you "cut short" your search.


You seem to confuse science with spirituality. Creationists have that problem, too. I can't think of a reason that science would even attempt to address spiritual questions, and vice versa. Still, there is that minority which insists on doing so, much to their own consternation. Trying to find God with science is like trying to make spaghetti with bowling balls, and trying to address science questions with religion is like trying to drive a nail by waving a fan at it.



So, in effect, it is a bad thing to have a religious motivation as a scientist.


Ah, I see. you seem to have the strange notion that a scientist must be motivated by religion if he has one. I'm just not getting why you would think that. I agree, a religious motivation is a piss poor way of doing science. Religion properly deals with things of a spiritual nature. Science is a different beast altogether. It deals more with the mechanics of the universe, not with intangibles.



But also take note, that I never said what "sort" of religion. And also understand, that I just stated previously ... that to me, "believing" in Big Bag, is the same as "believing" in God. The difference in only semantic definition of your deiety.


That's right, believing either for or against anything at all, is not science, it's belief - a cognate of faith. Science doesn't deal in belief, it deals in hypothesis and experimentation, verifiability and falsifiability. Science asks questions and seeks answers, and doesn't rest at belief.



edit on 2011/8/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Yes that is compassion, but not all of us feel it the same way. When I see people hurt I help. But there isn't always something in me that says to help. Sometimes, there is no feeling. I just know that's wrong, because I was taught that way.


For me, some of it is inate. I was tought, it's right ... but something in me rises and says it's wrong and rebels against some of the teachings.
edit on 29-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Ah, I see. you seem to have the strange notion that a scientist must be motivated by religion if he has one. I'm just not getting why you would think that. I agree, a religious motivation is a piss poor way of doing science. Religion properly deals with things of a spiritual nature. Science is a different beast altogether. It deals more with the mechanics of the universe, not with intangibles.


Yes, I personally know that most people are motivated for or against by their religious concepts. Of course, we might say that money is not a religion. But those that are not directly motivated by religion, are indirectly done so by the need for money and survival.



That's right, believing either for or against anything at all, is not science, it's belief - a cognate of faith. Science doesn't deal in belief, it deals in hypothesis and experimentation, verifiability and falsifiability. Science asks questions and seeks answers, and doesn't rest at belief.


Exactly, but you still have problem of falsifyability. A lot of the work, of getting verifiability lies in the concept of needing to convince your peers. Defend your thesis, against your peers ... which too often, is too easy for some and too hard for others, and this depending on the pre disposition of those peers.

Take Big Bang, as an example. Or the DNA research as another. Or earth history ... of the three, you might say DNA research has succeeded. As far as I know, it has and if so, it's the only one of the three ... but all of these are dominated, and coherced by religious motivation. Big Bang, was presented as "BB made the universe in 7 days". A beginning for the Universe ... why does there have to be a beginning for the Universe? Without any evidence, for a beginning of the Universe, you already make a theory of how that beginning came to be. And as such, spend a lot of money and manpower, in search for the "God element", responsible for it.

You call that, not having a religious motivation?




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
With ATS being a seemlingly religious forum, with a majority favouring belief in a supernatural deity.... I seriously worry for the results, and what they say the intellectual integrity of the masses on ATS.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TrailGator

Originally posted by SaturnFXAnd now you know why creationism isn't taught in schools

a million different "hypothesis's" and only one trail showing proof (evolution)

wrong, it isn't taught in schools because the evolutionists control the school curriculum. "Proof"?


Yes...proof. meaning peer reviewed evidence that confirms a hypothesis...proof. Care to take a gander at the thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers, fossils, etc that makes up this proof...or are you happy just remaining ignorant of it all and making laughy faces on the internet?

Meh, society needs more roofers than kings anyhow.
keep smiling

Well, in my ignorance I know this: one definition of a hypothesis (among its several) is an assumption or concession made to test logical or empirical conequences. An assumption used in an argument without it being endorsed...in other words its a supposition. A theory.

Thus my use of the word FACTS? as a question for you to reply with. But you triumphantly declared NONE and rather stated that "peer reviewed" papers - from people who only believe in evolution - were the source of your "facts".

So let me know how your roofing business goes. I just hope you use real world facts when building them instead of untested suppositions.
edit on 29/8/11 by TrailGator because: edit a word



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   






top topics



 
78
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join