Ar tonelico fan site forums.
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Random Philosophical Walls of Text | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 9 2014, 11:50 AM (742 Views) | |
| Post #1 Sep 9 2014, 11:50 AM | wizzardx |
|
I thought it was about time I made a topic like this~ Basically in here, we can ponder and discuss random deep or philosophical things - like about life - people - the world around us - and so on. Or also - some more outlandish things like say scifi or the nature of consciousness or reality or other dimensions. Also, members can bring up other subjects that they're interested in posting their own thoughts on, or on having other members read and perhaps comment a bit on. Warning: This topic is very likely to be quite wall-of-text heavy~. But should also contain a lot of interesting insights and perspectives of our members, into several subjects - or at least, if this topic gets any traction~ And as always, please remain respectful of other people's feelings and opinions on various subjects~. There's no need to argue about what is right or wrong - let's just agree to disagree on some things in advance, rather than turning things into a debate. Debates or arguments on specific points - don't work well over the internet - and can easily turn into a flame war. Also, very personal or sensitive subjects - are very likely best posted in the Dive Therapy section, or in a personal blog (either offsite, or in a separate personal blog topic), rather than in this topic. And I guess - since I spend so much time thinking about so many random things, I'll have a fair amount of things to put in this topic myself, from time to time~ |
|
|
![]() |
| Post #2 Sep 9 2014, 12:26 PM | wizzardx |
|
So, hmmm, let me open up with something that I think about from time to time. Where does meaning in life come from? For some people - it's family. For others, it's friends or loved ones. For many it's religeon. And for other it's things like their favorite hobbies and interests. Or quiet time spent pondering about things. Or their jobs or careers, or being able to make a difference to people around them. These are all things - that we feel give our life some meaning and purpose, rather than being some kind of totally random and meaningless event. It is totally subjective of course - there is no one single objective or scientific measure of what "meaning" or "purpose" means. And for me? Where does meaning in my life come from? I feel that - it comes from within myself, ultimately~. Almost like, my entire subjective world is something like an AT Cosmosphere - but one where I can Dive myself from time to time and tweak and fix things a bit when there's problems. I think I also find meaning in things like - being able to understand myself, the world around me, and people better in general - by having many experiences, and reflecting on them. Meaning for me - also comes from being able to live in a way where I'm at peace with myself and my world, with no major internal clashes or conflicts. That's also sometimes known as "congruence" - being able to be pretty much the same person on both the inside and the outside. But, I don't want to write too much about me here - otherwise I should just post this on a personal blog somewhere~ And well - also in fiction - or in worlds like AT - every person also has their own motives - things that give them purpose, or that they want to achieve. This adds a lot of depth to them. And even the "bad" characters in fiction - they also have things that mean a lot to them too - important reasons why they do what they do. Even if sometimes it's based a lot on being highly mentally or emotionally unstable or hurting a lot, feeling very self-justified in their thinking despite for instance - looking very distorted or even "evil" to other people (and them also knowing this at the same time). Many people (in reality, or in fiction) that we judge as "bad" are also just very badly misunderstood by people around them, or have a lot of reasons that we don't know about or understand. And in a similar way - people who behave in "good" ways, can often be doing that kind of thing for bad reasons, even if others appreciate that good. This could be due to things like insecurity, or feeling like they won't be liked or accepted otherwise, or for showing off to boost their ego, or trying to manipulate others in various ways. I've kind of been in many of these different positions myself over the years. So I can often feel some sense of empathy with people who find themselves in these kinds of situation. The human mind - and psychology and stuff in general - what makes people tick - whey we do and say the things that we do - it can be both very simple, and incredibly deep, even at the same time. .... And I guess for now, that's enough random walls of text for me on this particular random set of subjects~ :P. |
|
|
![]() |
| Post #3 Sep 10 2014, 05:03 AM | Palsa |
|
Interesting topic, I'm glad that you made it, as the subject is something that I've been wanting to discuss on the board. But right now I have to work on a drawing, so my post will have to wait. |
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| Post #4 Sep 10 2014, 05:17 AM | wizzardx |
|
Hi Palsa, and welcome to the topic~ Hope you enjoy it. And now, time for another random philosophy session~ How do we know that what we perceive is real? This is an ageless question. Another variation on it would be the question - if I say that something is blue to another person - and they also call it blue. Are both of us really perceiving the same thing? Or might perhaps - one of us be slightly color-blind, and what one person describes as being blue, is actually a shade of green to the other person? Or another thing - in front of you - you have a yummy apple. But is the apple really there? In terms of physics - the apple itself is more or less a 99% empty piece of space, with subatomic particles whizzing around. Also, that thing that we call ourself - at least in purely scientific and non-spiritual terms - is sitting somewhere within our skulls, being fed imagery of various kinds, through our optic nerves, and many other sources, via a highly complex set of biochemical processes. In a very real sense, your normal body and senses, aren't actually "you", despite how you perceive it. This idea is also explored extensively in religion and spiritual disciplines. For instance Budhism has a concept of what we perceiving as reality as being an illusion. So - even if the apple really is 100% real and juicy and delicious - what we perceive of it - if we look at it and touch it, or take a bite out of it and enjoy the taste - is that really the apple itself, or just some kind of an idea of an apple, based on how our senses perceive it, and how our bains and minds and bodies are "programmed" to perceive it's environment based on biochemistry and millions of years of evolution? There is of course, countless scifi which plays around with ideas like these - The Matrix being one of the most well-known examples. It's also a question that's of great interest to say - real-life AI researchers - who want to attempt to reproduce - say - our own sets of biochemical reactions - artificially in electronic form, to be able to create fully sentient and self-aware beings. And in some recent popular science, there is also some discussion of trying to figure out scientifically whether our own universe is something like a computer simulation or not. And of course - the AT series explores this kind of idea a whole lot too - for instance the nature of consciousness and reality, and how that can be manifested in different ways - through various kinds of artificially created beings, who the regular human characters think of and love as regular people just like themselves. An endlessly fascinationg subject~ On a practical day-to-day basis, these things don't matter at all to us, or other creatures in general. We're hungry, we take the apple and eat it, and then go on with our routine. We don't spend time consciously filtering through millions of biochemical feedback loops that take place in the process - we aren't even directly aware that those kinds of things exist in the first place. They just "happen" by themselves, without us needing to understand them in the sligthest~ Ah, anyway - just some food for thought, in the same way that an apple is food for your stomache. And speaking of which, I'm hungry now, so time to go have some breakfast. Without overthinking the quantum and biochemical nature of what's going on there - otherwise I would die from starvation first~ |
|
|
![]() |
| Post #5 Sep 11 2014, 03:07 AM | Palsa |
Wizzardx has already touched on a lot of great topics. Before I go into a full detail on my views of the universe, I think that I should give a brief rundown on myself, as it will probably help to clarify my perspective of things, and the best place to start is probably one of the most controversial topics in existence: religion. Seriously, I've known people that will break ties with a person that they have known for their entire life, simply because they refused to question their beliefs. My religious upbringing (everything that I state is my own opinion, I do not expect other people to agree or disagree). First and foremost: I was raised a Christian, predominantly of the Episcopalian denomination, but when I was a toddler it was not uncommon for me to attend kindergarten and occasional services at a Moravian church, since it was walking distance from my home. During my childhood I attended the RA's at a Baptist church, though I was not an official member of that church, I went there every Thursday with a relative that was a regular member, this stopped when I was around 8 years of age. I always had an outlook when attending church on Sunday: "What is the point?", if you go to school and learn everything that they can teach you, it is expected that you will eventually graduate and move on, taking the things that you have learned and applying them to your daily life. But at church the same message is taught every week, and once they have finished with the book, the flip it over and start over again. Which led me to another question: why is it that so many people attending church are in their 80s or 90s? They have been taught the message, but they have never learned the message, and a good number of them do not even understand or practice the message. To make matters even more confusing, the church had several different priests over the years, and each had their own interpretations of scripture. In my view: if a person is born into a family in America, they will probably be brought up in a religion such as Christianity; if a person is born in China, they will probably be brought up in Buddhism, but how many of these people attend for a personal reason, a love of the truth, or out of the interest in knowing the creator? How many people attend because: "Daddy said so"? If you subjugate yourself to another person's believe, out of obligation to your parents or the community you are raised in, then your reasoning is based on that of fear and the desire for personal security, not for the purpose of enlightening oneself, and definitely not for the love of the creator. So at around 11 I stopped attending, I figured that there was no point, if I wanted to learn something from that subject, there were 10 or 20 bibles gathering dust around the house, I did not need to have another person interpret the book for me. Besides: if God were all knowing, all loving and all forgiving, then certainly he wouldn't have a problem with a follower asking questions, the only person that would is someone shady and manipulative. When I was around 13 there were a number of bad things that occurred, my uncle on my father's side stole a lot of money from my grandparent's estate, my father was made P.R. but the attorney we had did not do his job, and my uncle got away with his crimes. My best friend who was living in Tennessee was killed in a bike accident, then of course 911 occurred (which I do not by any chance believe the official story of), and all forms of news from that point onward either became: spin, hype or redundant, but very little I could call good or honest. This in turn drove me to a startling revelation: if god exists, he must be some sort of a sadist for allowing so much bad to go unattended, and praying sure as hell didn't work, as it seemed to have the opposite effect. And so for a short time I became an atheist, until I found out that I was actually a deist, which as it would turn out, I always was from the very beginning. Deism is very fascinating, as it is basically whatever you make of it, there are no doctrines to live by but one's own personal standards, that being said, deism is not a religion. There is no one telling you who to worship, and no one telling you what not to, it is entirely open to your own beliefs, rather then someone else's. So, what is my form of deism, and my outlook on the creator? Before I get into that, let me define several flaws and misunderstandings that people have been making for eons. Religion: is basically a believe system that someone follows, they themselves may or may not have experienced anything of divine nature, but that doesn't make it real or unreal. Science: is the study of what the universe is made up of, but that in itself does not mean that our interpretations of science are correct, in reality all that we know is nothing more than a theory based off of another theory, that is essentially based off of yet another theory, thus creating an intertwined web known as: 'mainstream science' or 'accepted thought'. Magic, mysticism and the paranormal: are nothing more than religion and science without an accepted mainstream theory backing it. Therefor: religion is a perspective of what god is, science is an accepted perspective of what the universe is, and magic is an unaccepted perspective of both. But where does the truth enter the picture? Mainstream scientists accept the mechanism, but deny the existence of a creator, where mainstream religious (not all forms might I add) deny the study of the mechanism, and accept another person's interpretation of how it works without question; what neither of the two seem to realize, is that the are arguing over the same thing. Mainstream science is just another religion, if it goes without question. Where mainstream religion expects us to believe that a story written thousands of years ago, by a person living in the desert, or a cruel bloodthirsty dictator that has the nerve to call themselves noble, had some sort of divine experience with the creator of all things in the universe. All of infinity cannot exist in a singular form, that form however is a part of infinity. Which brings me to the million dollar question: what is God? As I see it, there are 4 concepts that lead to the idea of what God supposedly is: 1: God the creator. 2: God the inventor. 3: God the assumption. 4: God the empower. For an example: let's say that you are an android, and you live and work for your master in a garden, who or what do you consider as God? God the creator: whatever caused the creation of the universe, the stuff that your materiel comes from, this could very well be the Big Bang. God the inventor: a physical being that took existing materiel and constructed your artificial body, they then imposed authority over you, with the expectation that you will obey whatever they say without question. God the assumption: through your daily activities, you grow dependent on things such as: the weather, the light from the sun, the water you drink, the fire that you use to cook your food, and overtime you have attached a divine purpose to them. God the empower: whatever it is that causes the existence of all things, that flows through all things, and is all things, call it the: 'force', 'consciousness' or 'evolution' if you wish. So, what is God? Well, I can personally rule out that God is an inventor, and an assumption is just another theory. In my perspective: I look at God as being the combination of the creator and empower, an infinite existence that in a whole has little to say about what some person living on a spec, within a spec, within a spec, within a spec of reality does during their daily life, so don't worry about burning in Hell for all of eternity, that is a product of human idea as a means to control the masses, and has no place in reality. Does this mean that I deny scripture? Not at all, I do not accept scripture in a whole, but there are truths hidden among the pages. Everything that exists is a resource of knowledge, use it wisely and with great caution. When it comes to scripture, one should always research the history behind it using every resource available, and if you can't find the information to research, look elsewhere, but don't stop your search for one moment. So, where do you start? Don't get hasty, one should treat research as an investigation, you should never begin your work for the purpose of proving your point, nor to disprove an opposing view, that is not research. Research is about looking for what is true, not what is accepted. Before a person can begin, they should understand 3 simple principalities of how information works: 1: Never judge a book by it's cover. If you claim something is untrue, refusing to even look at a different perspective, because it exists outside of yours or another person's chain of thought, then I suggest you crawl back inside of your box, because you are unfit as a researcher. 2: Truth is stranger than fiction. Just because something sounds outrageous to yourself or to your accepted company, does not make it false, a proper researcher leaves no loose ends unchecked, no matter how ridiculous it might seem at the time. 3: The winners of the war are the writers of the history books. This is by far one of the most accepted and most overlooked realities; conspiracy is absolute, there is no fairytale government that hasn't lied to it's people or plotted at some point in their existence, this is what history has taught us since the dawn of civilization, and it will never change. What these 3 principles teach us as a researcher, is to accept nothing and deny nothing as absolute, keep your mind free to listen to other perspectives and interpretations; organizations and belief systems are created by a few people to keep the majority of people organized, it is easy for corruption to rise to the top, and whoever or whatever group has control over the flow of: information, natural resources and currency has power. Taking that into account, one has to understand that all forms of: government, educational institutions, corporations, and religions, are just organizations made up of many people following one person or minority group at the top, who in turn has control of: information, natural resources and currency. The church has a massive history of corrupt leaders since it was founded, and modern Christianity for an example, was created by the Roman emperor Constantine; this is a well documented fact, if you are a Christian and wish to know the truth about the religion before Constantine corrupted it, then I suggest watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0Ib3aPG6Y and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6XNO6Jv3q0 My overall point is that one should question everything, starting with their core beliefs. Okay, now that I've gotten all of the controversial junk past, I can start on the fun stuff, like the paranormal.
|
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| Post #6 Sep 15 2014, 05:45 PM | wizzardx |
|
*coming back here for the first time in a while* *reads Palsa's walls of text* Some pretty interesting stuff there, thanks for sharing your views~ And I guess I'm in a bit of a thoughtful mood now myself, since I've found myself spouting general philosophical stuff in other topics and emails - I guess it's time to get a bit of it out of my system over in this topic :P. And well - I guess that religeon is as good a subject as any~ If it comes to myself - I guess I would describe myself as areligeous. In the same way that I don't have a particular interest in politics, or soccer, or local music, or whatever - I don't have any particular interest in religeon at all either. I'm indifferent to it in general. For me - it's just like - one of those rather delicate things that many people can and do make a huge fuss over. So, I tend to leave the subject alone, rather than bringing it up. My own opinion is that faith, religeon, God or Gods, are whatever people need them to be. And well - the objective fact of whether those things do or don't exist in any objective or provable way, doesn't really play a role in that at all. Skeptics and atheists tend to describe religeon as a way of controlling the population. For big parts of history - church and the government were also pretty much the same thing. What we have (in principle at least) - separation of State and Church, or things like freedom of religeon, are actually pretty recent and enlightened viewpoints, in the larger historical context. Pretty much anyone today would run a very big risk of being burned at the stake as a witch or heritic - or something like that - if they were transported back into the past, and shared their own beliefs and ideas about such things. I think that - really - it's a very interesting part of human psychology - why do humans feel such a strong need to believe in higher powers or a god, or a pantheon of gods, or general supernatural things? My own intuition on it - and also from some times of my life when I've thought in different ways to how I do now - is that - a lot of it comes down to insecurity in general. Kind of like - as a child, you have all-powerful parent figures. As you grow up, it can be a bit of a terrifying realisation that - say - bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people, or that the world and universe don't care what you think, and pretty much everything is random and without a deeper meaning. People need there to be a reason for, and an explanation for things - especially things that they fear and don't understand. It helps them to cope. They need to feel that they have a special place in the universe - that the "powers that be" are looking out for them and their loved ones. Human's aren't exactly the most rational of creatures. We're driven very much by primal instincts and fears and feelings and such. Well - I guess in some ways - my own position is also one somewhere between agnosticism and aethiesm - perhaps somewhere in an area that I would like to call Rationalism. So instead of asking questions like - does God exist? I like to ask instead - why do people think - or want to think - that God exists (or things like an afterlife, and so on), and why? Why do they have such strong feelings on the subject, or base their personal identity or reality and worldview upon that kind of idea? This is a separate question to whether those things actually do or don't exist in any kind of objective sense. A lot of things are pretty much - by their nature, unprovable or unintuitive. Like, what is north of north? What happened "before" our current universe came into being, and where - if anywhere did it come from. Is there a reason or explanation for it all? Is there a hidden or secret world around us - where things like the paranormal are very real factual and non-fictional? Whether we do or don't believe - strongly - or weakly in things - doesn't change the fact that they fundamentally do or don't exist. So - while I guess it's a bit entertaining to listen to a crazy person (or even get them lunch and chat to them for a while) - about their supernatural beliefs - or their very logically internally inconsistent ideas (never mind their inconsistency to observable realities) on the world being about to end - or similar. In the end - that's just something that they believe really strongly in. And are entitled to belive. I don't have an agenda of trying to prove to people that what they believe in is almost 100% likely fictional or highly irrational. That's not really constructive at all. I guess - it's more annoying that - these kinds of things tend to become - in some cases - institutionalised and part of indoctrination to young children, who don't have the critical thinking abilities to be able to make their own judgements or consider that their parents or peers might not actually be right about some things. Even if you love someone - that doesn't mean that they're always right (hell, even your own thinking and perceptions as a human being are highly suspect, due to their mostly subjective nature). I think that - more than anything - what's important is to be open to the idea that many things that you strongly believe in - might be totally wrong. But also, a lot of the time - that kind of thing doesn't really matter at all. In some ways, I kind of see it like - rabbid supporters of sports team A vs rabibid supporters of team B. Or Gang X vs Gang Y. Or rabid debaters of philosophy A vs opposed philosophy B. Us vs them mentality. And also things like - pressure to conform to the ideas of people around you, or to your own ideas of how people are meant to think and live. But that's pretty much a big part of human nature too. Sometimes it's interesting to learn more about that kind of thing - trying to understand why we think the way that we do, and believe the things that we do. What cognitive biases other people, and yourself hold? What makes an overly-pessimistic or negative person tick in that way, vs say, someone who is overly-optimistic person tick in another way? Regardless of whether something like God does or doesn't exist - the fact that so many people have such a strong belief in that idea - one way or another - for or against, or somewhere inbetween - does have a very strong and measurable influence on how humans behave and think. And that behavior in people - even if not necessarily the thing itself that is believed in - is something you can believe in and take rational actions and thinking based on. I guess - ultimately - a whole bunch of this just comes down to people thinking what they want or need to think. The objective reality of that thing that they think or want to think - is kind of secondary to that. People believe all kinds of crazy and irrational things about just about everything - and we're pretty much wired to be that way too - humans tend to be very adaptable creatures, and able to accept or believe just about anything given enough time. And well - if that makes them feel better - or better able to cope with life and their environment or problems in general - then I feel that - it's best to just live and let live, rather than try to attempt to force some kind of agenda or philosophy or something else on another person - perhaps in some kind of attempt to help to justify their own beliefs? This goes for just about any kind of belief or value system actually, and not just religious beliefs. In that sense - it's true to - that many people take some ideas of science or aethiesm very seriously - actually to an irrational extent. That's another kind of set of values that they've strongly internalized and based a large part of their personal identity and values on. But well - science is just about what can be measured and reproduced. There is no actual "ultimate fact or reality" there. Just the scientific method - create a hypothesis, attempt to falsify. Something that may be widely held as scientific fact, may be totally overturned a generation later - while "even" scientists between the two times, don't want to believe what the new set of evidence is strongly pointing towards. Scientists - are just human too after all~ And well - I think it's kind of a mistake to try to mix ideas of science, with ideas of religeon and faith, or try to argue about which one is wrong or right. The two - really are mostly separate domains or ways of thinking. A good example of this kind of of contradictory thing is - irrational belief in "science fact" or "appeal to authority" - is how general media tends to distort or misunderstand science research, or turn it into something heavily political or charged (climate science is one big example there). In the end - humans are just humans, I guess~ And well, I guess that's the majority of what I have to say on this kind of thing, at least for the moment~ Edited by wizzardx, Sep 15 2014, 05:49 PM.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Post #7 Sep 16 2014, 04:46 AM | Palsa |
|
I totally agree. Regarding the comparison of science to religion, what I was meaning is when many scientists want to talk a theory into a fact, and regardless of what they say about being open to new ideas and chains of thought, they will go back to the same theory as though it were proven 100% fact; even Neil deGrasse Tyson, whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for, makes this mistake from time to time. Treating a theory as a fact when you do not have 100% evidence that is a fact, and then defending it as though it were a truth, while rejecting another person's perspective, is essentially the same thing as creating another religion. The problem I have with the scientist's view, is that they want to say that: God is what we cannot understand about the universe, and therefore God is shrinking as we understand the universe all the more. Where the problem I have with the Christian view is that: God exists, even though I haven't bothered to question: where, when, what, why or how? But I Know that he exists, because I have 'faith'. In my opinion, faith is a definition to describe what we want to believe, when our God given senses tell us otherwise, and therefore perfectly describes an egocentric state of mind. "The flood waters are rising by the second, but I will ignore all help from my neighbors, as I know I'll be okay, because I have faith." Faith is not knowing, faith is not believing, faith is wanting without working to a means. I would prefer to know God than to have faith in him, or her, or it. But getting back to my point. . . In my personal view: I do not consider God as a thing or a being, but rather as a definition to describe the whole of existence. That being said, my perception of God does in fact exist, but is not necessarily involved in a: "Go do this!" sense; if anything, My God is as indifferent to our existence as the Milky way, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, the rock lying in your backyard, the doo you just stepped in, the doorknob, or any other part of the universe. I read somewhere that the original meaning to the word 'worship', comes from 'work for'; so if you worship Christianity, then you work for Christianity; where if you worship a theory, then you work for that theory alone. In my believe, I try to work for improving conditions for the whole, while opposing the views that deliberately target and harm an individuals rights and liberties, including those of animals. So I support an animal's right to live before a hunter's right to shoot them, which has gotten way out of hand as of late, but that is another topic I would rather not go into. Regarding evolution. Scientists want to point to evolution, a lot, and I agree with evolution, it has a lot of merit. What I don't agree with is their perspective of evolution: that mistakes in DNA code cause defects that eventually lead to the creation of a whole new species. Which is strange, because a religious person could just as easily use the same hypothesis, claiming that DNA is God's handy work, but instead the majority of them tend to deny it without even taking a look at the subject matter. Scientists: everything is a mistake, without question; religious: everything was ordained, without question. Enough with the bipolar thinking on both parts, science is not the study of carefully calculated mistakes, and spirituality doesn't have to be absolutism without free thought. So what do I believe? In my opinion, I believe that the Earth is a living organism. Some recent studies have shown that the Earth has a heart rate. We already know that all living creatures have a field of energy around them: Tai Chi, Qigong and Chakra have been used and accepted for thousands of years. Why I think the Earth is alive? Why not? If one looks at the human body, we have cells that exist within each of us, they live their entire existence inside of our body for our own benefit. If creatures live in our body, and we live in our Earth's planetary body, and our planet lives within our solar system, which lives within our galaxy, which lives within our universe, then why should we assume that the only form of life that exists is smaller than our own egocentric existence. If our body dies the cell dies, if our Earth dies then we die, if our solar system dies our planet dies, if our galaxy dies our solar system dies, if our universe dies then everything in our galaxy dies, if our ego dies then maybe we will see past ourselves and move on to true enlightenment. So do I believe that the Earth has a consciousness? I believe that the Earth has a subconscious, as we have with our body's immune system, whether or not the Earth has an intellect or ego is something that I do not know enough about or have enough information on to form a valid opinion. But in my belief: I feel that life can be best described as conscious energy, that exists within all things, and flows through and between all things. Prayer is real, and unexplainable at this point, but not all prayer works because most people think they know how. Imagine taking a person from the 4th century, showing them a computer and saying: "Hook it up and connect it to the internet!". They might figure out where the cords go, and they might be able to get it working, because they are just as stupid as we are, but they wont necessarily have an understanding of what it is that they're doing. So what is my opinion on evolution? The Earth's subconscious causes it to happen, creating and altering life, as our own subconscious creates and alters the cells within our body, for our own physical benefits. Likewise, the solar system creates and alters the planets, the galaxy creates and alters the solar systems, and the universe creates and alters the galaxies. In point, we all: are, part of, and made up of living organisms. And if all of that is what makes up the existence of God, then isn't it far more fantastic than some narcissistic creep, that claims perfection, yet is always angry with his creations? Okay, now that I've beaten that dead horse, I can now move on to the paranormal. What I'm about to say is based on my own experiences, I will however include several occurrences that other people of told me about, but I can neither endorse or reject their claims, I can only say that what I have experienced actually happened. My first experience with the paranormal was when I was 4 years old. It all started one evening when I was playing in my room by myself. I can't describe how it appeared before me, only that it was there, sitting on the floor as close to me as my computer monitor is now. A large bee-like insect, with a humanoid body, his facial features were right out of Loony Toons' portrayal of the devil himself: the head was like an upside down triangle with the corners rounded off, the eyes were as big to his head as a bee's are, except they had a pupil and sclera like most mammals, and he had a wide human-like mouth with sharp white teeth. I'm not sure if the physical appearance was for my benefit, or if it was just how a 4 year old would imagine him to look, but one thing that I can be certain about, is that he was not there for my personal benefit. This creature introduced himself as the king of bees, and told me that if I ate my dinner I would die. Now understand, I was 4 years old, and had never heard of Beelzebub, as a matter of fact I didn't even know about any of that until I watched the anime Rental Magica in 2007, as the majority of Christian churches do not even teach about the Testament of Solomon or the Book of Enoch, but that is for someone else to ponder over. I feel that it is also important to remind that having a gigantic, humanoid, insect, telling me that I was going to die is also a bit outside the chain of thought for your typical 4 year old's imagination. Needless to say, that after the creature had gone, I was terrified of what might happen if I should eat my food, and so I went without eating that night. Later on my older sister asked me why I wasn't eating, and I told her about what happened, where she gave me a very logical replay: "If you don't eat you will die anyway", and so the next day, I ate my food. Starting that night I was haunted, and it would continue every night over the course of about two weeks. It's difficult to describe what it was that I was seeing, only that they were there, but not physically in our plane of existence. Imagine looking at a light bulb for an extended amount of time, to suddenly look away. You can still see the light bulb, even though you are no longer looking at it, and if you close your eyes, the image is still there. Since I became and adult, I have heard many people talking about similar visions, even going as far as to describe how to put the mind and body in the right state, so that you can see them for yourself. One thing that they all have in common, is that you have to allow your eyes to go out of focus, and clear your mind of any obstructive thoughts (if you go about it with a denier's approach, then you will never see anything). Another thing that I've heard mentioned, as well as read a lot about, is the pineal gland, which many ancient cultures have refereed to as the third eye. But I will save that topic for later, back to my account. . . The things and creatures that I saw were as different as you can imagine, sometimes it was swarms of insects crawling all over the bed, on another occasion the entire room filled with water and it grew difficult to breath. On one of the strangest occurrences, I saw a very large humanoid version of my two cats enter the room, the form of which was so tall that their heads went threw ceiling, but were still fully visible, and I can only compare their physical appearance to Lon Chaney Jr's The Wolf Man. But the sightings did not end with that, I also saw different types of creatures, some big, some small, some resembled creatures in our world, where others were beyond belief, and some were humanoid in form. This went on for about two weeks, and my parents asked the head priest at my church to do a house blessing, after which, they went away and I haven't seen or encountered 'them' since. That is however, not the only experience that I've had with the paranormal, and is not even the most frighting. But my next experience will take time to tell, as it is late and I have much to do, so it will have to wait for another time.
|
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| Post #8 Jan 2 2015, 05:12 PM | Thunder |
|
*replica horns the topic* This is actually more nitpicking at the typical use of the word paranormal with regards to that which it usually covers, than anything else... simply because it bugs me when people use it as a broad brush term which includes relatively normal experiences on the basis that they have no logical explanation. I actually find that most of what is referred to as paranormal is not really even 'paranormal' (aka; outside of normal experience) at all. How can it be when such a huge percentage of the general population claim to have had such experiences? Last I checked, the estimates are that at least 35% of the worlds population believes in some form of paranormal activity and claims to have had some such experience along those lines. So... something that fully 1/3 of the world believes they have personal experiences with is somehow outside of the normal experience of life? Strange? For sure. Outside of the norm? No. There's also a lot of nuances to the subject, such as ghosts, foreshadowing/premonition/gut instinct (ie; you 'just know' something is going to happen a certain way with no proof beyond a mental inclination, then it actually happens that way), fate/destiny, etc. Further, believing one aspect to be true does not mean that all aspects of the paranormal are believed by the same person. ie; someone can believe in ghosts, but not telepathy. These subjects really shouldn't be lumped unto one umbrella term, but rather viewed on their own merit imo. Strangely, I find that just about anything that is classically classified as paranormal, could be made a definite reality via technology to varying limited degrees... creating cryptids being the hardest to replicate. Or rather, the most time consuming. As an example of this in play, limited telekentics is already a reality due to the existence of brainwave controlled prosthetic limbs. But before I derail the thread any further, I'll stop with this train of thought. Tackling some of the early on questions... here are my brief thoughts: Where does meaning in life come from? I would say that the only entity in existence with the answer to this question is oneself. Going on my assumption that your life is what you make of it (ignoring outside influences), then the meaning of said life is also up to the one controlling it... which is ultimately yourself. Nobody else makes your decisions for you, so your life and it's purpose is for you to decide. Outside factors obviously can alter the course of your life, but never the meaning you've ascribed to it. That decision to change the meaning of your life is yours alone to make, as is the decision not to change it. You hold all the cards in regards to this question, however, there is still inherently room for fate/destiny to play a hand. How do we know that what we perceive is real? If going on undeniable facts that we can all verify ourselves alone (ie; the sky is blue, the sun is yellow, water is clear), the short answer is "We don't." The long answer is first prefaced by the questions... "What is reality? Is it absolute, or a perceived construct?" Personally, the fact that math, which is entirely of human construct, can seemingly endlessly explain the entire universe and everything in it (including possible other dimensions) without conflict with previous work is nothing short of astounding. It makes the ideas of the entirety of existence being a sim or the development of the universe being dictated by a God or some other entity or entities a lot more believable. Looking at the universe, there are way too many 'random chance' scenarios that had to play out perfectly for things to be as they are for it to have 'just happened that way'. There must be reasons for why these things occurred the way they did. Examples; we still don't truly know where Earth's water or life came from. After all, we have never successfully lab tested the idea of the primordial ooze giving birth to life. We also have no clue where consciousness/self awareness came from or how it came to be, as another example. There are also basic observations that have no valid scientific explanation. ie; what is dark matter, really? Why does the universe have a speed limit? Why does space/time bend in manners not consistent with the force allegedly responsible for the curvature? (gravitational plane) What is beyond the horizon of the universe? What existed here before the big bang? How come there are no white holes in the observable universe, and why is it that the predicted depiction of a white hole perfectly matches the description of the big bang? Human's aren't exactly the most rational of creatures. We're driven very much by primal instincts and fears and feelings and such. This should come as no surprise. We humans are, after all, animals. There are only four forms of life on Earth (animals, pants, viri & single celled organisms), so have to be among one of the groups. We like to put ourselves on a higher tier, as an exclusive type of life form, but that's objectively absurd. Just like all other animals, we have natural instincts as well. A great many of people seem to have forgotten this fact, including many of the most intelligent among us, which just leaves me shaking my head when these supposedly intelligent researchers can't figure out the obvious. Perspective is a powerful tool... it's also a powerful handicap. Often times, an answer that's been staring you in the face for ages will come into view with a little different approach in thinking or viewing. As for scientists referring to theories as facts... that bugs me, too. Stating that a theory is indeed a fact, is to claim it as absolutely true with 0% chance of being wrong. The vast majority of modern science cannot believably make this claim for an equally vast number of theories. Put simply... Relativity is still a theory due to the fact that large & small particle physics do not fit mathematically in relation to each other. There are fundamental differences between the two that are as yet, unexplained. As for the basic premises of science and religion being at odds with each other... says who? No believable explanation has ever been presented in all of human history to support that supposed 'fact'... yet most believe said 'fact' to be true based primarily on nitpicking through largely insignificant aspects of a religions teachings. The Earth being only 6,000 years old thing, for example. Which brings me to the following. Now, I do follow a religion, but organized religion has always puzzled me. And my opinion of it is not all that flattering, so I'll abstain from getting into the details of it. How can official doctrine change willy nilly at the whim of the leaders if it is supposedly sacred and true? That's because, if we're talking about organized religion... that is frankly... a bastardized version of what the religion originally was. (Or a pile of theories passed off as fact to fill in the blanks, if you prefer.) Just like whispering a story into a person at the head of a 100 person chain will be totally different by the time the last person hears it. It's been twisted, turned & augmented along the way to fit what the leaders want it to. If you want the facts of a religion, go straight to the source, not to a source that can change the supposedly sacred word of God at a whim to appease a changing society. ie; you need no church or whatever to interpret the core tenants of a religion for you. And lastly... scientists are often portrayed as being open minded to all possibilities in their research, but... that's just a load of you know what. They cover up evidence that goes against prevailing belief all the time. Particularly when it comes to what we know about ancient human history. Medical science, as an example, is one of the most transparent of all the sciences, but that's because so many eyes are fixated on it. It's hard to get bunk past so many prying eyes and ears. My point is that like the various religions that science is supposedly at odds with, it falls victim to the very same fatal flaw. Much like people on opposing sides of an argument. Or to pull an AT reference, what Tastiella said. |
Aurica's Oracle & Arcadia's Vanguard
|
|
Aurica Nestmile's #1 fan! The Thunder of Arcadia Army Creed PURGE COUNT: 273 | |
|
![]() |
| Post #9 Jan 2 2015, 07:15 PM | VenTK |
|
Wow, there are all sorts of people in this forum, aren't there! This was all very interesting to read! I don't have much to share with regards to philosophy. However, I CAN tell you about the paranormal incidents that have happened in my life. Let me begin my narration of a certain occurrence... I was born into a rich family. My grandparents themselves were very well off with their business, but on top of that, both my parents worked long-hour jobs, so money was never a problem. However, in order to bring up their children well, we lived in a mediocre area - not too high end, but not a bad place either. All of this is actually quite important - even though the people who lived near us were all from middle class families, there were a few exceptions. Not too far from our house lived an elderly couple. They were extremely poor. When I think back, I kind of recall them living very meagre lives. This all happened when I was around 4 or 5. At that time, I was an only child, and without any family living nearby, my parents relied on the old couple to take care of me. Every day my mother would pay them when collecting me, as she came back from work earlier than than my father. Anyway, a lot of childhood was spent in that house. I didn't exactly hate it, as the couple were nice people. Their TV was still black and white, and they obviously didn't have much to occupy a 5 year old, so the old man spent the time telling me stories and funny limericks, while the old woman baked cookies and cakes which she would sell to the locals in the evening (my mother would buy them sometimes too). I wouldn't call my time there as fun, but I definitely liked it there. I'd spend most of my days over at the old couple's place. Even during weekends, I'd go there in the afternoons for a few hours. One day, both my parents had go abroad, so the old couple agreed that I could stay with them for the two nights that my parents would be away. The old woman showed me my room, which had been unused for some time, but it was still evening, and it wasn't time for me to go to bed. However, the old woman insisted that I go to bed right away, and offered me milk and cookies, probably to calm me down for bed. But I couldn't sleep. Not yet, anyway. But it wasn't because I wasn't sleepy enough, but the loud wails from beyond the west wall of my room; they were the wretched screams of a child. Those screams kept me awake all night, but I refused to leave my bed... for I was shivering in fright. I wanted to go to the room to the west and check if the kid was okay. That's how horrific the screams were. When I woke up, it was quiet again, and it was light out. I don't know when I'd fallen asleep, but I didn't bother thinking. I leapt out of bed, rushed out of the room, and turned to enter the room to my west... when I was faced with a dead end. There was no western room. I couldn't believe it! I started to pound the wall where I expected a door to be in frustration. Where was the room with the child? Was it all just a dream? I punched and kicked the wall, and when the old man, who had rushed there because of all the noise, tried to move me away, I suddenly froze up... when I realized there were tears flowing down my face. I never went to the house again. I wanted to, of course, but my parents never let me. It was definitely something to do with the conversation between the old couple and my parents, who both had come home a day earlier than planned. I remember my parents looking very grave, as the old man spoke, and the old woman silently cried. My parents never explained the situation to me, and we moved houses soon afterwards. It was only until many years later, after my younger brother had been born, that I inquired about the whole ordeal again. For whatever reason, it was my grandfather who told me. Many years ago, the old couple (who were then young) had a child. Unfortunately, there were some complications with the procedure, and the child passed away hours after being born. This shook the couple quite a lot, and they decided to not have any other children. Apparently, every evening, the couple would hear noises - noises a child would make. It was very strange because the noises would come from underground. However, what scared the couple was the fact that these noises happened since the day I started visiting the old couple's house. On the days that I went to the house, the noises would be of peaceful child, probably playing. On every other day, it was a child crying. The couple never told my parents, until the morning after I stayed there. They probably liked me around, and was worried that my parents would stop sending me there if they found out. I don't know. Either way, this was all that was explained to me. When I ask my parents now, they tell me everything that I already know. Either they've forgotten the other things, or that's all they were told my the old couple. Over the years, I've built up a few explanations, but they are all speculations. I even tried visiting the house after all these years, but it no longer exists, and I can't just ask to go into the house that's built over it. I'd welcome your thoughts on this, of course! Especially an explanation for why I was so attracted to the place. I honestly can't understand this... Edited by VenTK, Jan 2 2015, 07:16 PM.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Post #10 Jan 3 2015, 02:18 AM | Palsa |
Ooh, so much to comment on (but I have to get to drawing, so I'll keep this short for now). ![]() Thunder. Science and the Church have been at odds since before the inquisition. The church even had scientists and alchemists burned alive for heresy and witchcraft, simply because they were afraid of the implications it made toward the powers that be. But the problem in itself is not religion, as corruption exists in the highest of places, including the science community. What I was referring to were the scientists that wish to deny the existence of the spirit, as though it were some form of fantasy that is not worth investigating as a form of science. Likewise there are religious that refuse to question the existence of the spirit over the exact opposite reason; some of them will even deny obvious science, going as far to suggest that: "God put dinosaurs here to question our faith". (<<<That is a real quote.) Regarding the medical field, I'll have to disagree, on the grounds that there have been known cures for things like cancer, that have been deliberately covered up, seized and destroyed. Ever since the 1900s, when: Morgan, Carnegie and Rockefeller; bought their way into the medical universities, the corrupt pharmaceutical companies have: bribed, stolen property, destroyed reputations, physically assaulted innocent, wrongfully imprisoned, murdered, and committed mass genocide, all so that they can keep the money and sickness flowing. But anyway, I'm getting side tracked from the topic at hand. VenTK. That's an interesting case. ![]() I personally believe that the spirit is for the most part plasma energy, and that the soul is made up from a collection of plasma, while it is inhabiting the body. People have been known to witness plasma orbs leave a person's body after having been dead for up to 3 days. There is evidence that this plasma can move about on it's own, and will often appear at haunted sights, it has even been witnessed entering a person's body, where the said person will often experience an unsettling emotional change. Another theory is that the Earth's magnetic field is made up of the same plasma energy, making it the 'Heaven' experience that so many people claim to have after dying for a short period of time, only to be revived; which would explain why some North American Indian tribes refer to the northern lights as the 'ancestors'. This plasma is stored in the physical body, flowing in and out over the course of a person's life (Qi), carrying the emotions of the individual as data, and possibly some of the memories. This means that being around a person overflowing with negative or positive emotions can have an affect on you. I believe that this energy will occasionally gather into clusters, taking on the form of an entity, sometimes good, sometimes bad. The reason I brought this up, is because I believe that it can explain many cases of reincarnation, past life memories, demon possessions, and hauntings. Basically: though their child was never born, the life force that would have been that child lingered around them, and your presence stirred it up. It's also possible that what they were experiencing was a poltergeist, generated by their own longing for the child that was never born, and again, your being there activated it. Before my family left the church, my father was a part of the Order of Saint Luke (the physician), which preforms the laying on of hands, and will occasionally cast out demons, my father had several experiences with that. Speaking of my father, I have an interesting story that falls inline with the subject matter. . . Back in the 1960s my father was engaged to woman named Lynn, who was very pretty. Unfortunately, she and a friend of hers were killed when a truck driver fell asleep behind the wheel, and crashed into her car, crushing both of them to death. This happened the day before the wedding was supposed to take place, my father was in the navy at the time, and the higher ups refused to grant him permission to leave the ship so that he could attend her funeral, on the grounds that they were: 'not related at the time of her death'. Years later, he married someone else, my sister was born, then I followed. It wasn't until I was around 16 that he started talking about this, and he had somehow managed to find a picture of her through the internet. My sister was shocked, and claimed that when she was a small child, the woman in the picture would come play with her when she was alone. I have a lot more of these occurrences that I could share, but unfortunately my time is up for today.
Edited by Palsa, Jan 3 2015, 02:25 AM.
|
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| Post #11 Jan 4 2015, 12:09 AM | VenTK |
Thanks for the reply, Palsa! I still have many unanswered questions, but I don't think I actually *want* to know the answers to them... And wow, your story really is strange. You should have gone more into detail about the whole thing with your sister (what did the woman say, what did she do, etc), but I don't expect her to remember those things after all these years lol.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Post #12 Jan 4 2015, 02:11 AM | Palsa |
She was about 3 at the time, so I doubt that she would remember anyway. Another event that happened involving a ghost. My grandmother (father's side) told this to my mother about 35 years ago, so this is hearsay, but I consider the source to be very reliable. When my father was around 8 or so, he was asleep in bed next to his two brothers. My grandmother entered the room to check on them, and when she did, she saw a women standing over them, looking down on them. She could see through the women. That is pretty much all I know about that one, I don't know how she reacted to it, and I can't ask her, as she is no longer with us.
|
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| Post #13 Jan 8 2015, 04:31 AM | Thunder |
Sorry, sorry, I used the wrong word there What I meant to say was science and religion being at odds, not churches and science. My mistake. For me a church does not truly represent any religion, but rather a viscous fluid ideology that uses a bastardized version of a religion as its support. Read; the Inquisition, Islamic terrorists, etc. No religion sanctifies the activities that the inquisition or terrorists use, but both of those groups among others use a bastardized version of a religion to justify what they are doing. Point being, neither of them represent a religion, but an ideology masquerading as a religion. So, just because a church is at odds with science does not mean that any religion is.
Quite honestly, there will always be people that engage in these sorts of activities. They've found an explanation (or a route that might lead to one at least) that they are happy with and refuse to take any other path, even if that other path has better prospects than the one they are on. ie; classic closed mindedness.
This is part of the age old, "They keep us sick, because us being sick keeps the money rolling in", story... but really, where's the proof? I also hear this one used in the case of various other scientific fields as well, so it's far from isolated to the medical arena. I have no personal stance on this, but here are two sides to this coin: The case against the idea: Very famous, rich and powerful people that millions adore and love, die from horrific diseases every day, yet if there is a cure, and only money and/or connections can buy it, then why are there not more of these people surviving? There are people who research this stuff all their lives who die from the very same diseases, too. Unless one is to say that so called miraculous recoveries of some people from diseases that should have killed them for sure is considered proof? It could very well be, but then why would the people who know there is a cure not be using it on themselves? And why would the miraculous recoveries be so random? There needs to be something solid. The case in favor of the idea: The other side of the coin is that it is painfully obvious in some cases that the main body of medical research is looking the other way on several key health issues. Heart disease & Migraines to name two obvious ones. It has been known for years that citric acid can slowly dissolve plaque in a person's arteries and help stave off the progression of the disease, but yet, doctors always go straight for the expensive meds when they should be reaching for citric acid first. (Note, that this is also true of kidney stones.) This is of course due to preset arrangements and dealings as you mentioned. For the second case. Every time I hear about someone who has migraines, all the doctors ever do is brain scans and other tests that look at the nerves and electrical discharges/impulses. They never seem to look at the obvious place. The vast majority of migraines are known to be triggered by hormones, so why are they looking at nerves when they should be looking at the blood vessels? Hormones are in the blood, not nerves. Now you can ask, are they looking the other way on purpose? Possible. Or are they looking the other way simply because they're too stupid to put 1 & 1 together, because it doesn't fit with the mold they've created in their heads? Also possible. Bottom line, are they acting in the same vain as the top tier of other scientific fields? The jury is still out on that one. I'd like to think that when it comes to health, that we as a species are a little more in tune with the details where the answer could lie, than in other cases not dealing with life/death/human suffering situations. After all, being open to any possibility is a core tenant of science, even if it's been forgotten or deliberately shoved aside in the modern age by some. However, I feel that my point still stands, as the work of the majority of other scientific fields is done almost entirely out of the public view and is also therefore entirely un-replicable. If you can't verify something that someone told you, then how do you know it's true? Because someone told you so. All you have to go on is faith. Faith that they're not lying or only telling you part of the story. This is why I referred to large swaths of science as little more than faith and not much different from religion in that regard in a different thread. You can see the side effects of medication for yourself, and also if they work or not. As an example, do we know for a fact that alien craft have never been spotted by NASA or anyone else in space? Nope. Do we know that aspirin is a blood thinner? Yes. Because we can observe the results of medical science ourselves, that makes it one of the most transparent of the sciences. This by no means guarantees the integrity of the field.
Nah, don't worry about it. It's all good, we're still under the philosophy umbrella. It's been a good long while since a rousing discussion got going on here
Ball lightning is the most observable proof of this. Granted it's not in the context you were meaning, but it's basically the same thing. Edited by Thunder, Jan 8 2015, 04:38 AM.
|
Aurica's Oracle & Arcadia's Vanguard
|
|
Aurica Nestmile's #1 fan! The Thunder of Arcadia Army Creed PURGE COUNT: 273 | |
|
![]() |
| Post #14 Jan 8 2015, 07:02 PM | VenTK |
| Haha, that's weird. Apparently, that happened to my dad as a child, too! In the middle of the night, he woke up to see the figure of his deceased grandparents standing by the door smiling at him. I think my dad then just went back to sleep, haha! |
|
|
![]() |
| Post #15 Jan 9 2015, 04:03 AM | Palsa |
|
Thunder. In reference to the medical field being corrupt, there are a number of videos and sources that I would like to show you, but the majority of them have been removed for unexplained reasons. This one on cancer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km2cqQNFtEs Has been blocked in the US and removed from YouTube a number of times, and it explains several cures that have been proven to work, and how the people providing them to the general public were brought to ruin. It also explains what cancer actually is, and how it can be cured. VenTK. My great grandmother had a similar occurrence. She went into the kitchen on one morning, and claimed that she had the strangest dream the night before. Apparently her deceased mother came to see her, and said that she would come back to get her soon, less then a week later she died in her sleep. Interestingly enough, my great grandmother was a diviner, and on a number of occasions was able to locate water, where others had failed after searching for hours. My father has described the circumstances is pretty much that when she had located what she was looking for, the entire stick would bend as though it were being pulled to the ground. |
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| Post #16 Jan 12 2015, 04:15 PM | Thunder |
A few points… alright, a bunch of points... 1) Sorry for taking so long to get back on this. The vid is pretty long & I needed to find a block of time in which to watch it. 2) Nothing outside of the testimony/commentary by the creators of the alternative treatments is new to me. I've known the bulk of it for many years. Obamacare is another huge crown jewel representing the type of chicanery the medical establishment has perpetrated against us over the years, but that's another story involving rampant billing and insurance fraud and the real reason behind the skyrocketing health care costs. It is well known that doctors get kickbacks from peddling prescriptions endlessly and that the side effects of these drugs are often far worse than what they are designed to fix. Some of them don't even fix what they're intended to. It's also well known that 'home remedies' were thrown out the window ages ago for both the reasons mentioned in the vid as well as the fact that in the 19th century, a lot of it was complete bunk. Or quackery as the vid puts it. Using electrodes to cure diseases as an example. That puts a stain on it's reputation regardless of any sort of greed conspiracy. For the reasons mentioned in the vid on why the outsiders are silenced; money, intellectual ego, and preconceived notions play into the equation. For what it's worth, I have never understood the use of radiation as a method to fight cancer… it's like spraying water into a flooded basement and excepting the flood water level to go down. Pure idiocy. At least they admitted that physically removing the cancer is the best option. I love it when the doctor said that cancer sometimes "just cures itself". Bullshit. Nobody in a science profession should be accepting that as a viable explanation. Something made it go away, so go find out what it was. 3) I saw nothing explaining what causes cancer in the vid. More specifically, how a carcinogen causes cancer, especially in cases where no carcinogen was ever present in the first place. I already have a theory that fully explains this part of it, but not so much the transmission portion of yet, so it will remain unsaid. I only saw what is common knowledge about cancer (run away cell reproduction) in the vid, and its method of spreading (via blood). I also so saw nothing that explains how cancer can be cured. Saying that a bunch of herbs or vitamins were used is not an explanation. There is a huge amount of critical information that was omitted, such as which ones, in what doses, in what combinations, how or why they worked, etc. Details are critical. Getting ahold of that data and putting it to the test would be the watershed moment in the right setting, provided it worked. My main problem with the ideas put forth as a possible cure (all of this is in relation to cancer, unless otherwise specified: People eating home grown fruits & vegetables should be better off health wise at all times than those who eat store bought produce on which chemicals have been used based on a number of the claims and that's simply not true. They get cancer and other diseases just like everyone else. Vegetarians should also be healthier and that also has no evidence to back it up. Aside of the ideas in the video, people who have minimal exposure to toxins and regularly follow a diet that includes the herbs and such as mentioned, still get and die from cancer. The best general health example possible is that eating fruits & vegetables will not prevent you from getting diabetes. It's impossible. Both of those types of foods are loaded with sugar by design of what they are. What causes diabetes? Excessive sugar. Sugar is sugar, it doesn't matter where it came from. The proof is that diabetes existed long before processed foods ever did. But I digress. My last point is this. If these alternative remedies actually work then why are there not tens of millions of people pouring into these clinics to get treatment? In the age of the internet, it is impossible to not be able to get the word out about something like that. The numbers quoted didn't even hit a million, they were talking thousands. And the cure was given away for free in some cases. A cure for cancer that actually works should garner far more of a reaction than it is said to have in the video. 4) I saw zero evidence of proof that the alternative treatments worked. ie; where are the medical records of the patients for whom it worked? The patients themselves are allowed to release these documents and could have done so, but there is no mention of them doing so. If there's going to be a crusade on anything these days, it should be something huge like this, not the laughable crap that people get all bent out of shape about. Talk is cheap, show me the data. Keeping this in mind, I've had similar experiences to some of those in the video, where telling the doctor about an unconventional treatment option/idea leads to them saying something to the tune of "Don't tell me about it, just keep doing it, whatever it is. Whatever works for you." So the evidence is there that they turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't 'go by the book'. 5) From my standpoint, the video took a side arm shot at assailing the idea of taking cases on a case by case basis, which is utter insanity imo. It is known fact that the effects something has on one person's body is not the same effect that it will have on everyone else's body. Read; allergies, smoking, eating a lot of meat fat. In some cases, the medication is outright harmful, doing the opposite of what it is intended to do. I can cite numerous examples of this involving my father's health, including but not limited to his use of insulin shots causing his blood sugar level to skyrocket by 100+ points, not fall by 50-60 points as advertised. It is also common knowledge in the medical field that all medication has a percentage attached to it. This percentage is the fraction of the general population for whom the drug will work as advertised. In some cases, that number is below 50%. 6) There's also this general idea that doctor's know what they are doing, which I call total BS on. Again, using my father as an example, one doctor tells him to use a certain pill, but then another doctor screams, "No! No! Don't use that!". It's obvious to anyone with a brain which doctor is right, but both will swear up and down that they are in the right and the other is a quack. 7) It is implied in the video that the reason why there are so many more cancer patients now than there were a hundred years ago is because of the treatment. This is factually impossible. The treatment, which itself causes cancer in two out of three cases, is only administered after someone already has cancer, so the medical establishment is in no way contributing to the spread of cancer via its treatment methods. However… the various medications that have "may cause cancer" listed as a side effect on their label are a viable source of increased case numbers if used by those who are cancer free at the start. That said, by far the biggest reason for the increase in cancer of the past century is without question, pollution. Our contact with pollutants has increased several hundred fold over the past century and it mirrors the rise in case frequency perfectly. What was once in a few places is now everywhere. 8) If the medical establishment knows full well that their methods are useless (and two of them are), then why not investigate these other methods in secret after seizing the data of the remedy creators? They can then use these methods to keep themselves alive whilst selling the rest of us up the river. Members of their ranks also die of cancer, so what is the reason behind turning a blind eye to using a possible cure that has zero drawbacks of testing it on one's own rank and file, in secret? That makes very little sense on any level. On the flip side, go ahead an ask your doctor what they themselves do about certain illnesses and see if they're so quick to use pharmaceuticals then… hint, hint, they're not. 9) The video fails to explain why said possible cures have not struck it rich in other countries (they used Mexico as an example) that are more favorable to the use of such avenues. Read; countries that still rely heavily on the types of remedies proposed by the various people cited in the video. Surely if there is money to be made off the world, some country that has no hand in medical establishment in the US or Europe or some other industrialized country would be all over that opportunity to make literally trillions of [insert the currency of your choice] in profits. In the end, I'm not convinced that there is some hidden greed conspiracy that's hell bent on killing everyone off with cancer including those who stand to profit from it, but I'm also well aware that the medical industry is 'dirty'. Edited by Thunder, Jan 12 2015, 04:53 PM.
|
Aurica's Oracle & Arcadia's Vanguard
|
|
Aurica Nestmile's #1 fan! The Thunder of Arcadia Army Creed PURGE COUNT: 273 | |
|
![]() |
| Post #17 Jan 13 2015, 12:15 AM | Palsa |
|
Regarding the causes, it might have been another video that I was thinking about, as it's been several years since I watched it. The primary reason I posted that one is do to the part at the beginning mentioning how Morgan, Carnegie and Rockefeller privatized the medical education system. I don't remember where I saw it (thought it was the above video), but there was a video where a medical doctor had discovered that cancer is a fungus, and can be cured properly if treated as such. Now, I am not a medical doctor and cannot say whether or not that is the case, nor do I endorsing any particular treatment of the disease, but I do not believe that suppressing information and slandering the practitioner are never the right approach, and 90% of the time you look up something that goes against the mainstream, you will see 'debunkers', who spread more disinformation than anyone. Whenever someone presents an alternate perspective, the mainstream always seems to take the destructive approach; if they do buy out the person, then you will Never see or hear anything about the subject again. Regarding testimonies from patients, the common response is that a doctor will declare that it was a 'misdiagnosis', and that the cured individual never had cancer to begin with, and this is after they were examined by legitimate doctors stating that they indeed had the sickness. The remedies that have been proven to work have pretty much been destroyed, and the reputations of the practitioners along with it, so I wouldn't expect to find it anywhere. One of the possible reasons why the medical establishment doesn't look for a cure, is because they are owned by another establishment that would rather make a profit off of a sick returning patient then to cure them. There is nothing new to this concept, it is essentially the same thing that the mob has been doing for hundreds of years, yet no one questions that; the money elite are no different from the mob, they make their money off of selling drugs and the continuation of war. We live in a society that is so poorly informed that most people don't even know that hemp and marijuana are not the same plant (much of which are government officials). But this ignorance is also greatly generated by the myths about marijuana itself. According to the U.S. government, hemp is illegal to grow because 'it looks like marijuana', which is not entirely true, considering that industrial hemp is grown differently and during another season of year. You can also buy, manufacture, eat, etc, imported hemp; hell you can buy hemp cereal at your local Whole Foods store. As for marijuana: tobacco is a known carrier for toxins that exist deep within the plant, if smoked outright, those toxins will not bother you, but the manufacturing process of cigarettes releases the toxins into the body; it is also a well accepted fact that alcohol is significantly more dangerous than marijuana. So why is it really illegal to grow? Because anyone can, it will grow pretty much anywhere, and there is no profit to be made from it if were legal, and they can make more smuggling it over the border illegally. Hell, look at the number of people the government profits from imprisoning each year for possession. The basic point is that the money elite determine what is allowed to be sold, whether if it is behind the counter or under the table. I know it's insane, but remember that we live in a society where people are elected by minorities, and government officials deny grade schooler science in favor of big money, so it shouldn't be too hard to see that the same crooked lobbyists also control and own the medical establishment, at the very least, it is bought and payed for. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the 'may cause cancer' medications, why take a drug to cure depression, if it is known to cause: depression, suicidal thoughts, violent behavior, stomach bleeding, or it is known to cause death (<<<all are real symptoms from commercials), which is in itself evidence that the FDA is bought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXtQUOImhBI Anyway, let's get off the controversial junk, I've found that it is all too easy to lose friends over talking about stuff like this, I value ARM and it's members too much to stress that relationship, and I don't have the time to go through a list of sources anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the medical discussion is closed. Regarding science and the paranormal, I highly recommend watching One Step Beyond. http://www.hulu.com/one-step-beyond One Step Beyond is a half hour program from the 50s and early 60s that presents a short story, much like the Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. The difference is that One Step Beyond gets their stories from actual accounts in the public record, instead of making them up on the spot; they present the paranormal as simply 'the unknown', and it is one of the most open minded television shows that I have ever seen, asking questions in various topics that were fairly taboo at the time, and with many of them we are still breaking the ice on acceptance. Anyway, I highly recommend watching the program, you will most certainly enjoy it.
|
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| Post #18 Jan 13 2015, 07:03 PM | Thunder |
I went through all of this commenting as I went and only realized that you wanted to move away from this after I'd finished… …so I put all I had to say in spoiler tags so you could skip it all.Spoiler: click to toggle Though really, isn't everything controversial in a philosophy topic? Since we all have different views and all. I'll get back to you on the paranormal part, I need to eat something first ![]() Edit: Ah, I see. I like the Twilight Zone. That era had some really good shows that dealt with some far out there subject matter and some matters that were way too close to home, yet nobody really thought about much. It was definitely a good time for innovative tv shows. There was one show in particular that I'm thinking of that was exceptionally good, but I can't remember the name of it. You've gotta have a good stomach for the creepy to watch it, though Anyway, I'll check out One Step Beyond. It seems interesting. This pic of the host looks familiar.
Edited by Thunder, Jan 13 2015, 07:50 PM.
|
Aurica's Oracle & Arcadia's Vanguard
|
|
Aurica Nestmile's #1 fan! The Thunder of Arcadia Army Creed PURGE COUNT: 273 | |
|
![]() |
| Post #19 Jan 13 2015, 08:47 PM | VenTK |
Yeah, I kinda feel the same way as Palsa lol. I choose not to bring up any philosophical ideology or anything of the sort because I don't want to unintentionally force my opinions upon others or create conflict or anything. But paranormal stuff is fine in my books. They're like life experiences, and I'm very interested to hear more, haha. I read stuff from creepypasta from time to time, but they're usually stories (which are fine in their own right), and I don't belong to any forums or online sites apart from this and, like, one other, so I don't get the opportunity to ask people from around the world about their ghastly experiences.
Edited by VenTK, Jan 13 2015, 08:48 PM.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Post #20 Jan 13 2015, 10:30 PM | Palsa |
|
Grade school science was an exaggeration, but here is one of many examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI The grade schoolers are 3 minutes in. |
General of Aurda
|
![]() ![]()
| |
|
![]() |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Members and Community · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
11:55 PM Jul 10
|










What I meant to say was science and religion being at odds, not churches and science. My mistake. For me a church does not truly represent any religion, but rather a viscous fluid ideology that uses a bastardized version of a religion as its support. Read; the Inquisition, Islamic terrorists, etc. No religion sanctifies the activities that the inquisition or terrorists use, but both of those groups among others use a bastardized version of a religion to justify what they are doing. Point being, neither of them represent a religion, but an ideology masquerading as a religion. So, just because a church is at odds with science does not mean that any religion is.
11:55 PM Jul 10