Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Is There Life Elsewhere in the Universe? Is There a God?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 18
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 template Next
  • #81
    Originally posted by winoman
    OK then - life as we do not know it... yeah - all of the above...

    funny jokes

    Media doe snot exist independently - doe snot control/report etc independently. Outright falsity and fraud would be discovered (as it is not uniform either) - thus media has an intermediate role - and certainly has much power to influence and to direct - but in itself it is not the do all and end all - stories are written about actual people, entities and events - thus not all is fiction and the maleability is only by degree not in toto....
    OK agreed makes sense: media is a powerful tool in the hands of whoever is in control.

    Comment

    • #82
      Originally posted by Anonymouse
      ...Beliefs or phenomena that are associated with not being explained by science therefore are not negated because they do not meet scientific criteria. The idea that a belief is absurd because it cannot be validated by science is itself an assumption on the range of absurdity, and we don't call that science, it's called scientism.
      Are you confusing science with physics?
      What about neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and all related fields? how are they related to your physical senses? You know senses are not the only tools used as a base for scientific method...

      So, if your beliefs are explained (i.e. it is explained scientifically why did you end up with such and such beliefs) by the "brain-related" sciences, and by history and anthropology, then why should I think of them as something "out of the scope of science" and something inherently unprovable/undisprovable?

      For me, if I can prove that your belief has a perfect historic and psychological explanation, it's "truth" value vanishes. It just isn't expressing a fact about the world, instead it's only a consequence of the environmental conditions you and your ancestors have been exposed to

      Comment

      • #83
        Originally posted by winoman
        OK then - life as we do not know it...
        Life as in green little guys - most probably no, life as in complex evolving structures (without constraints on scale/material/binding forces) - most probably yes.

        Comment

        • #84
          Originally posted by rabinovich
          Are you confusing science with physics?
          What about neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and all related fields? how are they related to your physical senses? You know senses are not the only tools used as a base for scientific method...

          So, if your beliefs are explained (i.e. it is explained scientifically why did you end up with such and such beliefs) by the "brain-related" sciences, and by history and anthropology, then why should I think of them as something "out of the scope of science" and something inherently unprovable/undisprovable?

          For me, if I can prove that your belief has a perfect historic and psychological explanation, it's "truth" value vanishes. It just isn't expressing a fact about the world, instead it's only a consequence of the environmental conditions you and your ancestors have been exposed to
          I speak of science within the context of metaphysics. I am not confusing anything.

          Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying?
          Achkerov kute.

          Comment

          • #85
            Originally posted by Anonymouse
            I speak of science within the context of metaphysics. I am not confusing anything.

            Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying?
            Not really. You are saying senses are the base of scientific discovery, therefore anything that cannot be sensed physically (or even physiologically) is not in the realm of science and cannot be proven/disproven.

            And I am saying NO to that, because there ARE sciences that base not on senses but on 1. human mind / observer's own mind (which is directly observable to any human scientist and in principle does not require any external ports for information), 2. recorded history (which is a source of information we consider undisputed in this particular discussion), 3. observer's individual / social experience, 4. many other sources of information I forgot to mention here. Using such sources one can PROVE that certain beliefs originate under certain conditions and do not have a truth value in themselves (i.e. whether or not the fact is physically true or false, the belief originates in your mind), which nullifies those beliefs in my (and many other people's) eyes.

            Comment

            • #86
              Originally posted by Anonymouse
              I speak of science within the context of metaphysics. I am not confusing anything.

              Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying?
              Plus, I don't think you answered any single thought in my post. If you don't answer the next post either, I will conclude that this discussion is pointless since I am being ignored.

              Comment

              • #87
                Originally posted by rabinovich
                Plus, I don't think you answered any single thought in my post. If you don't answer the next post either, I will conclude that this discussion is pointless since I am being ignored.
                Perhaps you should clarify what it is you want me to answer.
                Achkerov kute.

                Comment

                • #88
                  Originally posted by Anonymouse
                  Perhaps you should clarify what it is you want me to answer.
                  Well when two people talk, one of them says "A", the other says "no, not A, because B", the first one normally either says
                  1: "oh yes, I didn't think of B, indeed not A", or
                  2: "yes, B, but there is also C, so still A", or
                  3: "how come B, if there is D? no, not B, and therefore still A"...

                  or along these lines

                  1 is called agreement
                  2, 3 are forms of disagreement

                  Comment

                  • #89
                    Originally posted by rabinovich
                    Not really. You are saying senses are the base of scientific discovery, therefore anything that cannot be sensed physically (or even physiologically) is not in the realm of science and cannot be proven/disproven.

                    And I am saying NO to that, because there ARE sciences that base not on senses but on 1. human mind / observer's own mind (which is directly observable to any human scientist and in principle does not require any external ports for information), 2. recorded history (which is a source of information we consider undisputed in this particular discussion), 3. observer's individual / social experience, 4. many other sources of information I forgot to mention here. Using such sources one can PROVE that certain beliefs originate under certain conditions and do not have a truth value in themselves (i.e. whether or not the fact is physically true or false, the belief originates in your mind), which nullifies those beliefs in my (and many other people's) eyes.
                    Now we are dealing with an issue of semantics and ironically, belief. Some people would call psychonanalysis a science, others would not but I wasn't referring to that, and there are people who don't agree with it. Science in its strictest sense must conform to the scientific method. I am speaking of science in its original sense as understood by the scientific revolution and the scientific method. I am using the strictest possible definition of science and knowledge.

                    As a history major I will tell you that history is never considered "undisputed" and to claim so is childish. History is always disputed, and is always being revised because it is a process and is based on what Foucault observed as discourses based power relations of who does the speaking, who is spoken to and what is allowed to be spoken. I don't see what your point with this is unless you want to clarify without being vague.
                    Achkerov kute.

                    Comment

                    • #90
                      Originally posted by rabinovich
                      Well when two people talk, one of them says "A", the other says "no, not A, because B", the first one normally either says
                      1: "oh yes, I didn't think of B, indeed not A", or
                      2: "yes, B, but there is also C, so still A", or
                      3: "how come B, if there is D? no, not B, and therefore still A"...

                      or along these lines

                      1 is called agreement
                      2, 3 are forms of disagreement
                      Perhaps finals has really worn me out, but what is the point of this may I ask?
                      Achkerov kute.

                      Comment

                      Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 template Next
                      Working...
                      X