1. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Imaginary play and thinking outside the box are essential elements to successful child development and learning. They are also, of course, much sought after skills in business and art etc.

    the importance of critical thinking comes into play in examples like kids jumping off roofs, imagining they can fly by holding the corners of a bedsheet. or not wasting the company's time and money (or your life) on scientifically impossible endeavors.

    dreaming about building a bridge or curing cancer is wonderful. but eventually you have to stop just dreaming and prove the idea works.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    It's amazing because successful people come from all walks of life. From parents that abused them, or parents that were abusive to one another, to families that split up. But the majority of them talk about how their parents "believed" in them, and allowed them to pursue their dreams as a child, and probably most importantly supported their ideas and endeavors. Too often parents who are negative or don't believe in success somehow pass that belief system onto their children. These parents think the system is fixed or it's a waste of time, and even though they might not say that to their kids they sure as hell carry those beliefs in their day to day actions and it shows through
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Nope. No "creator" involved.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Igrokush1

    Igrokush1 Member

    Personally, I don't EVER want to stop dreaming...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I don't think deirdre was speaking about the general concept of dreaming...
    most of us do it often....it can be useful for creating; it can allow us to endure long hours in a stifling workplace.

    But building a safe bridge does require more than dreaming.

    As my friend Tony liked to say "Don't stop believin'" and nothing bad ever happened to him...

    Dont Stop.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    WW, you know I love you and respect your level of intelligence but this type of comment can hurt some people's feelings. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs when it comes to religion or the lack there of. It's important for us to not make comments like this, even the most intelligent of people throughout history believed in a Creator (not saying I do or don't).
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I do not intend to hurt others....feelings or otherwise.

    I deal with science. I THINK about science.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I agree, but science is also faith based if you think about it to a certain extent, and creator can have so many different meanings depending on who you talk too. The more difficult questions regarding science start with a belief, a belief that needs to be substantiated with quantifiable science. Beliefs and emotions make up a large percentage of how humans use their brains. I remember reading somewhere that 20% of brain deals with logic, and the other 80% involves emotions and autonomous systems that keep our body alive, ie; heart, breathing, blinking, etc,etc,etc. The ability to believe or dream in an emotional sense, allows us to pursue those beliefs, no matter the cost. For some it's in a book that was written thousands of years ago, and for others it might be through a telescope or in a research facility. The same can be said for people who believe they will fail all the time. These individuals will never succeed no matter how hard they try (or think they are trying) because they already made up their mind that they won't get across that finish line. If great minds didn't "believe" there was something else out there to discover, no discoveries would be made. It's all based on a belief or faith based system at some level or another.
    Not all beliefs are right, and being on a site such as this proves this point overwhelmingly. But there isn't one person alive that can prove a Creator doesn't exist or does exist, so to dismiss it as if all the science is out on this subject is a bit rash, and not fair. Science hasn't disproven a creator, not that I'm aware of. I don't believe in one to be honest with you, but I would never fault someone for believing it. I mean those who don't believe are in the minority, so that should bare some weight.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  9. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    There's certainly room for
    "our creator instilled in all of us" and "Nope. No "creator" involved" here.
    Both are understood to be merely opinions. Neither is verifiable.

    I'm all for respect (and I did not take WW's comment as impolite or disrespectful) but I don't think
    "can hurt some people's feelings" is necessarily a good benchmark for what's okay to say...
    you Jason, might have something intelligent, useful and true to say...that might hurt my feelings...and that's okay...


    p.s. Not to imply that you would, either deliberately or carelessly...you seem like a real nice guy
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  10. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    it doesn't hurt my feelings, it makes me disregard his other debunks and opinions a bit more. except the piloty stuff, of course.

    religions scam people maybe out of money, spirituality doesn't.

    I think debunking things like Santa Claus to children or Heaven to people who lost loved ones, serves no benefit to debunkers. it just makes them look like people who 'argue' every little thing. its kinda like what Igrokush does, just in the opposite direction!
    : 0

    of course, I'm not a former believer like Jason, so I guess my post is off topic. maybe.

    p.s. still love you Weed!
     
  11. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Best Snoop Dogg album ever? :p
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  12. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    How about 'evolution has instilled a little creative instinct instilled in each of us' - satisfies both?

    Does spirituality have to include the concept of a creator?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    I wasn't sure whether to agree or disagree to your statement here, so I just cautiously gave you an agree. I think human imagination is important, and it does allow us to push our boundaries. Albert Einstein would not have developed his various theories in relativity had he not been daydreaming at a patent office, and I believe he himself said "imagination is greater than knowledge."

    That said, the caution here is taking it too far. Conspiracy theories tend to involve a lot of finger pointing and accusations that are senselessly driven by imagination while leaving behind, and sometimes even ignoring, the conventional frameworks of scientific thinking.

    Yeah, it's good to think outside of the box, but just don't live completely outside of it. It's bad for your health.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  14. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i would think some kind of creative force. like, if "the machine" (of science/universal law) is "the creator". does that count?
     
  15. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    When I looked at Buddhism, I discovered there tends to be very little link between their practices and that of some creator, or supernatural power. This might be the only exception, but I think there is room for separation between spirituality and that of creation/creators
     
  16. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Tricky, but that works. Is there 'spirituality' if there isn't acknowledging or paying homage in some way to a creative force?
     
  17. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Honestly, I think it would be difficult to define spirituality in terms of, "an accepted definition by the majority". If you ask a 100 different people what spirituality means, I'm guessing you might get a 100 different responses. Even searching out the word on the net tells us there is no widely accepted definition or meaning of the word, and it varies depending on each individual's belief system.
     
  18. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah, I'm mainly asking though because it was implied that a belief in creator doesn't have to mean religion, it can mean 'spirituality', now I'm wondering if you can have 'spirituality' without a creator belief.
    (and no, I can't stop putting that word in quote marks because it is kind of poorly defined).
    And as Deirdre said, a creator belief doesn't have to be a diety or 'consciousness' or whatever, it can include natural forces.

    So to answer my own question, 'can there be 'spirituality' if there isn't acknowledging or paying homage in some way to a creative force?', I say probably not; because my definition of spirituality is *relationship*, and that would have to include a thorough grokking of the forces that have formed you and your eco-system.
    That would encompass a non-supernatural appreciation of evolution and what not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Not sure I want to venture too far down this path, but it seems to me that paying homage is not
    necessarily required for spirituality. Seems like one could believe in something without public veneration.

    All the same--and I reckon I'm channeling my inner WeedWhacker, here--I couldn't read
    "paying homage" without flashing back on the classic scene from the Life of Brian:

    [the emboldened, colored bits are clickable media, on the site http://www.montypython.net/brianmm1.php]


    Screen Shot 2014-10-27 at 10.00.58 AM.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    I have to disagree. Science is the same regardless of faith or belief. The laws of physics, chemistry, and the other sciences all remain the same no matter what I choose to believe or what I have faith in. My beliefs or faith have no bearing on whether new discoveries prove to be scientifically valid. Many prominent scientist have faith but they make a clear distinction between what is faith based and what is science based. When that line is crossed you get scientific fallacies like Creation Science that pick and choose minutia and cling to the slightest thing that science might not know to claim their faith is scientifically valid. I see the people that sell the Ancient Aliens books and promote the idea of Norsemen/Knights Templar/Henry Sinclair in Pre-Columbian Minnesota use the same arguments on a regular basis.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    The laws are yes. But great minds imagined fantastic things throughout human history which allowed them to follow a path. Sure science is science, and I get that. But the ability to believe that there is something else out there, like the big bang, infinite universe, black holes, parallel universes, worm holes, and who knows what else these great minds think of is somewhat based on there belief systems after having an understanding of science. Someone has to imagine it, then believe it's possible, then try to prove it is possible. Sure most theories happen after disproving a theory. I mean the primary definition of the word theory is; an idea or set of ideas that explain events or facts. It's a premise based on an intelligent belief or speculation if you will. I don't think scientist work on stuff they don't believe in or have faith in. I think they have fantastic ideas "theories" and then try to prove if it exist or doesn't. But I could be wrong.
     
  22. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Where did you find a dictionary that includes the word belief in the primary definition of theory. I've checked three and didn't find belief mentioned.

    You seem to be mixing up speculation
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculation?show=0&t=1414483836

    and belief
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief?show=0&t=1414483482

    Belief and speculation are not synonymous.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/belief

    Scientist engage in speculation constantly and dedicate large portions of their lives to proving or disproving speculations as a whole or in part. When a speculation is proved or disproved it become part of our body of knowledge and can provide a starting point for additional speculation. This body of knowledge is separate from belief because it remains the same no matter what a someone believes. It may seem like semantics but it is the difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=Bigfoot. Mathematics is a branch of science and if done correctly the answers to the equations are always the same. Bigfoot is something people believe in despite the lack of proof, alternative explanations, and fraudulent experts and evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Jason, remember that a "theory" in scientific terms is very different from a "theory" as in "conspiracy theory" etc.

    An idea based on speculation is called a hypothesis. Only if it becomes very well tried, tested and accepted does it become a theory.

    I personally think it's a bad name, as demonstrated by the number of creationists who object to evolution because "it's just a theory" — as if that means it's just guesswork, or a belief system. It isn't.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Sure with CT's they have a belief system which in turns makes them believe their theories are correct. I get that, and maybe I'm not using the right words here, or I'm way off base, which is also a possibility. So can someone have an idea about something without believing in it when it comes to experimentation and discovery. Do drug companies dump billions into a drug because it's purely an idea or do they believe it will work and thats why they dump billions into it. Do scientist or students develop ideas purely based on mathematics and science, or do they have to believe in their ideas to sell these ideas to the institutions or companies that will fund their projects "ideas". All ideas start with knowledge, but I'm pretty sure there has to be a belief system driving those ideas. Who works on something for years and years without believing in their work? Most theories or ideas prove to be false or yield a better theory. You can't tell me when astrophysicist thought up string theory, or parallel universes it wasn't based on beliefs as well as science. The belief that there is something else out there that we are missing or don't know yet. There has to be a drive or motivating factor that drives these ideas..
     
  25. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    But these are theories that are based on existing knowledge and explain real things. It's not like "believing in fairies" or "believing in chemtrails", which is not needed to explain anything.

    Believing in your work means believing, based on real evidence, that what you are doing is valid. You can't equate that with the kind of "belief" that people have in myths.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I agree trailblazer, but how can a scientist believe in something based on "real" evidence, if the discovery hasn't been made yet. They present their theory, and granted many moving parts in their theory has real evidence, but the conclusion of their theory takes some imagination in some cases. And its this imagination part of the theory that they have to believe in. You can't have evidence or mathematics for something that hasn't been discovered. You can have evidence that might suggest something is being missed, or might provide clues, but it's a leap in imagination that provides the end result they are after. Which in turn drives their beliefs.
    I think Carl Sagan says it best; "Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were, but without it we go nowhere"
     
  27. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    I'd agree with that up to as point. You need to have imagination to try new approaches, but you don't believe that they are true until you have evidence. Whereas the CT mindset seems to be "I can imagine it, therefore it must be true" ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Scientist make educated guesses based on what they already know. Money and time are invested based on those educated guesses. Using drug companies as an example they conduct experiments based on their educated guesses and continuously evaluate the results before deciding to conduct additional experiments and investing additional money. Even when luck plays a part they still have to go back and do the work. The closest thing to belief they might have is the initial hope that their educated guesses may be correct. You seem to be determined to find some kind of belief system that underlies science but I have never met a scientist or engineer that relied on belief to achieve innovation or inspiration or to solve a problem. They have always relied data, thought problems, and hard work. You don't get start-up investments by talking about what you believe. You get it by presenting the data that supports you idea. The same goes for getting your degree or validating your engineering concept. Belief does not play a part in leaps in imagination or creativity. If anything relying beliefs can constrain you because they limit the options you are willing to consider.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  29. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Which is exactly what the CT belief system does. Take the Jones/Harrit paper as an example.
    If you REALLY BELIEVE in controlled demolition, then having PROOF of active Thermitic material is fantastic, and you will then overlook all the criticism of the sloppy methodology, poor sample labelling and tracking, the fact that the "spike" wasn't actually in the right place on the graph,the weird refusal to let anyone else have samples to test, and just go along with their conclusions, rather than entertain the thought that they might just perhaps be paintchips.
     
  30. Igrokush1

    Igrokush1 Member

    Yes, I'm with you on that one!
     
  31. Igrokush1

    Igrokush1 Member

    I agree. Both are opinions, in which neither should judge the other, as it was genetically instilled, however it was, to possess an individual opinion. More power to ya!!
     
  32. Igrokush1

    Igrokush1 Member

    Good one, I fully agree!
     
  33. Igrokush1

    Igrokush1 Member

    I think, accept people as individuals. You can't run forever, but you can join the Amish. The point is, if you choose to be a recluse you can surely do that, if you want to be a part of a cult or other religious group, you can do that also. However it's my opinion that 'walking on a different sidewalk' with the rest of society is morally and socially inept. We are all people each entitled to believe different than the next. Another country also most likely contains other people, not guaranteed to believe what you do. Accept the opposing opinion, and no need to get fired over it. Hey, I tell my 9yr old son...you do you. In other words, don't get hung up on others in any way, because it takes away from self help and ultimately impedes forward progress. I don't get too bowed out when people here whole-heartily disagree with me, it happens ALL the time, probably simultaneously as we speak. But OH WELL. Reminds me of those hats and shirts....I (heart) HATERS. Have a nice day:)
     
  34. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Can't you see, though, that there is a fundamental difference between having different opinions on matters of opinion, and having different opinions on matters of fact?

    It would be truly boring if everybody had the same opinion, and I have no problem with people believing that Sports Team X is the greatest, or that aniseed is a perfectly acceptable flavour for alcoholic liquor, or that the UK should join the euro, or that it should leave the EU altogether, or that the monarchy should be abolished, or that the USA should adopt the Mexican peso. These are all matters of opinion, and however much I may disagree with them, I cannot say they are WRONG.

    But people who have an opinion that men never landed on the moon, or that airliners are spraying us daily with aluminium nanoparticles, or that Barack Obama is a reptilian, or that GMO corn causes tumours in mice - well, that's just flat out WRONG. You can't have an opinion about a fact. Well, you can, but it's not an opinion, it's just you being correct or incorrect. Facts don't come in shades of grey.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  35. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Unfortunately some people consider facts to be nothing more than opinions because people identified the facts. They are either willfully ignorant or unable to make connections required to understand that facts remain the same regardless of their opinions on a topic. If you are unable to differentiate between fact and opinion then it is possible to believe anything. You maintain your mistaken belief, even in the face of overwhelming evidence you are are mistaken, because all that evidence is just someone's opinion. They seem to often be the same people that consider science to be nothing more than an alternative belief system to religion and spirituality.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  36. ignorancewasbliss

    ignorancewasbliss New Member

    I appreciate the distinction between the two. Now I have something to consider when I look to discuss (for lack of a better word) things with others.

    Agreed.

    Will you site your sources for the nanoparticles and the GMO?
     
  37. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I am not "Trailblazer" of course, but what you ask here is the fallacy of "proving a negative".

    What I mean is...in order for the claim of being "sprayed by aluminium nanoparticles" to be true, it must be substantiated in some way.

    There has been NO actual evidence to provide any factual basis for this claim. You see, THAT is the method here. Evidence, not just claims, and certainly not a sort of "prove to me it's not happening" sort of argument. Facts. Full stop.
     
  38. ignorancewasbliss

    ignorancewasbliss New Member

    WW, thank you for your response. I understand what you are saying and agree with it. However, I was not specifically asking Trailblazer to "prove" anything. This misunderstanding might have been avoided had I put it another way instead of resorting to the cliche of "show your sources". The intention of my request was just to further my knowledge on why the opinion of airliners spraying aluminum nanoparticles was not true. Simply put, I wanted to see the information he had already done the legwork for. Selfish? Maybe, but it was a request and nothing more. In any case, I will look into both of the aforementioned opinions myself if I am unsatisfied with this forum's member's responses. One valuable source I have already found while looking into it was on these forums,

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wheres-your-evidence-of-chemtrails.990/

    This thread has already answered my questions regarding the nanoparticles, but that isn't to say there might be more useful information on the subject.

    As for the GMO's, I have not done a lot of research. Here again, I was looking for shortcuts. This article is about the extent of my knowledge.

     
  39. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    It's an interesting article, and I think it's best we all keep our minds open about this stuff.

    That said, there are a ton of qualifiers ("could be," "might," "if..." and so on...) that suggest that this might not
    withstand much scrutiny...and the motives and history of the person reporting the data are of interest,
    as is the fact that this seemingly earth-shattering news comes from an atypical study financed by a
    GMO-producing competitor (Ceres, Inc.) of Monsanto's
    ...apparently released to the public before peer review...hmmm...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    `
    Well, I (and other professional pilots who post here) can answer that very easily.

    There is, simply, NO mechanism for such a sort of "spraying" of so-called "alumunium nanoparticles".

    There is NO ground-based manufacturing site for these alleged "aluminium nanoparticles", there is no ground-based delivery system to GET from the non-existent "factories" to airports....(where airplanes are)...and there are NO "storage facilities" AT the airports for this non-existent "stuff".

    NOR is there ANY way for this non-existent "stuff" to be "loaded" onto airliners....whether passenger airliners, or cargo-only. BECAUSE??

    ALL airliners, passenger AND cargo only MUST comply with the same regulations.....weight and balance, which is a BASIC, BASIC aspect for every flying craft. In airline operations, it is fundamental, and critical....and HEAVILY monitored.

    I could go on, and on....but I hope I've given you something to "chew" on, here.

    (PS....It would help greatly "IF" you took a bit of effort to learn about flying, and aviation. Perhaps would make sense to you then....).
     
    • Like Like x 1