spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 True evidence is not subjective' i might be mistaken but i think your definition of 'evidence' suits 'fact' better. and, needless to say, the two are different. people use 'facts' as 'evidence' , for example, that the world is heating up, or we all earn more than our parents etc. and even 'fact' changes with time etc. before galeleo(sp) it was fact that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. we know different. it was fact to the white man that all other races were subhuman. it was fact that women were less than man etc. and there was 'evidence' to 'prove' this. as for the idea that if you can't disprove it you can't discount it i fail to see the 'deep' flaw. same as, for the most part, if you can't prove something you can't call it real. there are still huge gaps in the sum total of human knowledge that even theories that are taught as gospel are based more on assumptions than any tangible facts. the stories in holy books always were metaphors. a few people mistook these for reality and because, as always seems to happen, they were very charismatic and managed to get a lot of followers. the fact that there are still so many questions is 'evidence' :-) that all is not answered. Sorry, all that comes under the heading of belief to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 ... it was fact to the white man that all other races were subhuman. it was fact that women were less than man etc. and there was 'evidence' to 'prove' this. There is evidence of similar beliefs to of existed long before white man did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 i don't mean it that way at all. we're talking about things at blurred boundery between science and philosophy or religion or whatever. not things falling down or up. but i see your point. as for It's something which can be tested beyond a reasonable doubt by anybody! the fact that we're talking about this means whatever we're talking about hasn't been tested beyond a reasonable doubt by anybody! just because things make 'sense' to us neither makes them 'true' or 'fact'. the same applies to both sides. Please explain what you know a reproducible scientific experiment to be. There are facts and truths in this field! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I dont see how any of this has any relation to the OP.. Why are you you..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 There is evidence of similar beliefs to of existed long before white man did! this wasn't a race thing,was just giving examples of 'facts' time has disproved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Sorry, all that comes under the heading of belief to me! what comes under belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Please explain what you know a reproducible scientific experiment to be. There are facts and truths in this field! a reproducible scientific experiment is exactly what it says on the tin. i fail to see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 was'nt answering Iwas asking what you think of as" self" some people think its ego ,personality,sub concious ,mind, psyche,emotion ,to name a few what do you think it is.?I think its relevent other wise were talking at cross purposes I did answer you, don't you understand my interpretation of self and the way I conduct myself? As to the constituent parts, I have stated those many times in this thread already. depends what you belive in .when we think we merely project past experiences of our physical bodies into the future.(its a rare individual that as an original thought)..some mystics belive mind can without reference to the past posses the physical body through its soul. As to forms of hypnosis (possession as you call it) I agree is possible. But to do it to 'bodies' in the past I don't! If you believe in voodoo then you are more susceptible to be possessed, if not even desiring it. If your drinking rum and smoking opium, well, you probably stand no chance of withstanding being abused! yes I will expand more but not now its 1 40 in the morning where I am,theres a lightning storm and monsoon rain outside. i'am half cut on a pint of rum guinnesse and carnation milk "an old voodoo drink" ;and theres somebody knocking at the door:suspect:hopfully bringing me my bed time pipe of opium:) Next you'll be telling me "The Teaching Of Carlos Castineda" (wiki) weren't the ramblings of some tripper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 what comes under belief? What I quoted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 a reproducible scientific experiment is exactly what it says on the tin. i fail to see your point. Because of your opening post: 'evidence', i think, is so sublective that in the end it's just a word banded about by anyone who wants to support any point of view really. an abused woman sees her husband's raging jealousy as 'evidence' he loves her. the same goes for most forms of 'fact'. in the ned i think belief, in whatever, should be what counts the most and whether or not people can be reasoned into 'better' belief systems is debatable. my own personal view is that we know so little about anything really that it's still too early to dismiss any belief, scientific or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.