Link between religious fundamnetalism and brain damage found.

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by MeAgain, Jan 9, 2019.

  1. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    Respected by whom? Other scientists? Lending itself to testability really isn't as profound of a feat as you guys make it out to be. It's actually quite obvious and people have been doing it for much longer than the 20th Century onward.
  2. McFuddy

    McFuddy Senior Member

    I think the ability to test is respectable, but not necessarily the scientists doing the testing.
  3. Meliai

    Meliai Senior Member

    Well, exactly.

    I dont think anyone has tried to say scientific testing is profound? But it is the one tool we have for learning more about the nature of the world.

    It isnt foolproof, but that's precisely the point of science - to test, to test again, and again and again. Thats the beauty of science, it always leaves the door open that something might be wrong, that something else could be right. Science builds on itself and what we've learned so far through scientific testing is likely only the tip of the iceberg as far as what there is to know, and current scientific theories likely will change and evolve as scientists incorporate new knowledge into existing theories

    (And here is where I feel the need to point out a scientific theory isnt the same as a layman's theory. A scientific theory is something that has been tested over and over again and hasnt been proven wrong - yet. Science, being science, always leaves the door open for new evidence to overturn existing theories, thus why a theory isnt a law even though it has solid evidence to support it and nothing as of yet to disprove it)
    MeAgain and guerillabedlam like this.
  4. Meliai

    Meliai Senior Member

    Science is simply knowledge of the observable world through methodical research and I find it disheartening that it gets demonized when its very nature is objective, not subjective
    MeAgain and scratcho like this.
  5. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    The fact that testing something isn't that great of an invention is only relevant because scientists place science on such a high pedestal. As the answer to all our prayers. I just think it's kind of absurd to be so pompous, because testing to see if something works or is true is the most obvious thing to do in human existence.

    The only reason it's even held in such high regard is because there used to be a lot of superstitious people who weren't that way at all. Otherwise instead of proclaiming an adherence to the scientific method we'd just be saying, "'re being reasonable." 'Cause that's all it really is.

    My biggest problem is that so many of them now have claimed that we have no need for philosophy. Which is very dubious, as scientists tend to be atrocious philosophers. The conclusions they jump to based on the data at hand are vapid at best.
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    We don't see sound being used by the local fire company because it hasn't been perfected yet.
    If you can perfect it, go for it, you'll make millions.

    Rifle machines, for which cancer curing claims have been made, are available. Here's a few.
    [​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG]
  7. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Well of course you can buy them for individual use, but they'll never be looked into for medical use by the hospitals because quite frankly, radioation therapy etc. costs more money.
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    Scientist come under rigid scrutiny by their peers, engineers, and common folk like you and I.

    Now what has science done for us? Here's a timeline.
    Science as we know it today started in about the 12th century and really took off in the 16th century.
    Roger Bacon (1214 - 1294) was one of the first to fully develop the scientific method:
    I really have no idea how you thing the scientific method is brain washing.
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    Historical representation is not science. It may be based on the input of various sciences such as radio carbon dating, chemical analysis, physics, etc. But in the end history is an interpretation of what can be learned about the past. History is always open to revision.
  10. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    I disagree. Text that predate the pyramids by thousands of years say that the pyramids were already there. Clear as day. Why do we keep teaching that they were big tombs built by slaves? Because if they do, put history needs to be reformed and rewritten, and they don't want us to know the truths. Lol.
  11. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    Sure they do, but science itself doesn't, and it cannot. It is infallible (as you go on to explain by way of saying "It gives us lots of good things.")

    But the truth is that it hasn't given us anything. Human beings gave us all that. I disagree that Roger Bacon invented the scientific method. People have been deducing things using this approach since the invention of fire. Roger Bacon is simply another human being we idolize and canonize, and mostly because modern scientists crave the same undue amount of adulation for themselves. All of this fame and notoriety is just self-indulgence. It isn't respect for the dead. If that were the case, far too many die without making history books.

    I never said the scientific method was brainwashing. But I disagree that it's "the scientific method." It's just the human method. It's something people naturally do and have always done. Like I said, the only reason it's even a thing is because we've spent so much time under the thumb of people who told us not to trust in our own reasoning, but to trust them instead. Eventually reason won the day, and we called it Science. But it wasn't Science. It was just being a rational human being.

    Science is brainwashing. It's a religion like any other, where you take something natural and innate to all humans and call it a creed, and make the pretense that certain people have proprietorship over it. It's just begging to be exploited by those who seek to control others. And, as I have said, that is already what is happening with all of these studies we hear about day after day, many of which will contradict each other from week to week. Not only do they want to convince us that what they say is true, but the overall effect of this inundation is that we begin to believe that humanity is at the pinnacle of enlightenment. Setting the stage for men to become God, tyrants. Maybe it isn't intentional, but it, at least inadvertently, serves megalomaniacs very well.
  12. Tyrsonswood

    Tyrsonswood Senior Moment

  13. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Hardly worth a response if you aren't going to do the research yourself to figure that out. But whatever. That's just my point anyway. The writing is on the walls but nobody wants to look into it. But it's a fact, the Sumerian wrote about the pyramids 4000 years before they were meant to be built and this is echoed through akkadian texts too. The sphinx too, all mentioned in written literature 4000 years before their proposed erection.

    So history written down 4000 years before they were meant to be built, and they still teach us false history.

    I also believe they were spoken about in the Book of Enoch, the book of Enki for sure too.

    What happened to those books? Tried to be outlawed, the original testament re-written.

    And this is how the brain washing starts. While the evidence is right there in front of people they won't even read into it, bah! They say, that's not right that goes against the grain of anything I know it must be wrong! But it's not. Those pyramids were written about well before they tell us they were constructed as a tomb.

    "Let the gazing lion, precisely eastward facing, with Ningishzidda's image be!"
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    Please look up what the scientific method is.
  15. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    History only pertains to written records anything before written records is prehistory, more commonly referred to prehistoric.

    I'm a great fan of theories about the Giza complex.
    You're referring to the Anunnaki and Zecharia Sitchin's translation of their texts I assume. I think I've read all of his books, and though they are interesting they are not supported by other branches of science. The Sumerians are right at the border of prehistory so we don't have much supporting evidence as to what they really thought or did.

    If you're interested Secrets of the Great Pyramid by Peter Tompkins is really good and is well respected.
    More off the wall is The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt by Christopher Dunn. I like Dunn because he seems to cover every physical attribute of the Great Pyramid including seemingly predicting what was found behind Gantenbrink's door.

    His theory is very interesting...but not conclusive not shown to be true as of now.​
  16. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    I know exactly what the scientific method is. Pretentious much?
  17. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    We've spoken about it before. Yes I'm addicted to Annunaki :D

    But pre history and history... No difference to me if they can't get it right from the start then no way I'm believing what they say about anything after.

    Sitchin was accused by modern science for making up and purposely mistranslating Sumerian text, but that's not questioned anymore. Experts in the area confirm the same results. He told the correct stories but like so often at what I'm getting at, he's slammed by lies to the point no reputable scientist can speak up for fears of being slammed themselves.

    I have recently bought two books on the Annunaki, recent books not Sitchin 70s stuff. These books are mean to be directly about the gold trade in south Africa, which was told in Sumerian text etc. That's why I mentioned all these hundreds of thousands {the actual quote was over a million, but if I say that it'll be dismissed as too far out there} ancient mine shafts that's are purposely covered up by the government.

    It is all adding up to me. Those Sumerians were pretty spot on the money and valid with what they wrote about.

    So one book is about the slave trade, the other is on Annunaki temples on Sth Africa.

    The annunaki were also giants, and in south Africa biologists have already discovered fossilised bones of giants. I believe very recently they will be tested for DNA so could be interesting. The ancient ruins and pits of Sth Africa are the largest formation of built walls on earth spanning over 450,000 sq.. Much of this is actually buried underground but you can see them from the air.

    This all came about when "brain damaged" people noticed that nothing significant has really been found in the southern hemisphere, so they looked at the text of the Sumerians about the gold mining slave trade, and it pointed them to a direction and boom, they found ancient ruins never discovered or discussed.

    I'd love to go on an annual tour one day to them.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
  18. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    I really love ad hominem attacks, by the way. If you can't admit you might be wrong or hold your own in an argument, it behooves you to just not speak, Megan.

    The scientific method, condensed:

    1. Observe (MAN START FIRE WITH ROCK.)
    2. Hypothesize (ROCK MAKE SPARK. SPARK MAKE FIRE!)

    It's fucking obvious and people have done it for eons. You guys act like you're some kinds of noble geniuses for performing the most basic act of reasoning that ever existed.
  19. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    And under stress from the cracks of whip, slaves were able to generate superhuman strength to lift 100 tonne stones into the air. :p
  20. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    And even if Sumerian text is on the borderline of history and we can't make assumptions because we don't know anything before hand, they still wrote. Of the existence of the pyramids and sphinx well before the Egyptians came into being. They even wrote about is geographical placement.which is accurate. I mean come on. :p

    Lots of information was obtained when the "lost tablet" (funny that) was later rediscovered to shed new light, which has spurred researchers to unlock the mysteries, which is why we see an increased movement into pre historic architecture etc.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019

Share This Page