[Arcais]

Brothers,

Can you tell me about your spiritual life? What you believe in? I don't want a religious discussion but can you tell me about how you view the world and what you live by?

I feel as though I have lost a spiritual part of myself and I need to gain that back to get my life in order. Kind of like getting your swag back.

Personally, my religion and what I live is a sense of machismo.



What I worship is untamed wild testosterone fueled aggression. I'm trying to become so much more. I'm trying to get to another level of aggressiveness and I just am looking for a way there.

Should I take up boxing or some other kind of sport?

I just want to be as tough as my father and grandfather were and I feel like i'm not making enough money or swooping enough girls or being as aggressive as I should be in life, it's like I am a walking shell of a potential man.

I'm going to look for God or something to balance me out right now because I feel like i'm losing grip on the world and I want to have two feet planted on the ground moving forward in life.


Just had to get this off my chest.

For now I'm just going to believe in myself.

[speakeasy]

(10-30-2011 11:05 PM)Arcais Wrote:  

What I worship is untamed wild testosterone fueled aggression. I'm trying to become so much more. I'm trying to get to another level of aggressiveness and I just am looking for a way there.

Should I take up boxing or some other kind of sport?

Join the marines.

[Giovonny]

(10-30-2011 11:05 PM)Arcais Wrote:  

For now I'm just going to believe in myself.

I think thats the most important thing to believe in. Study yourself, master yourself, have faith in yourself.

I do believe in a higher power but down here on earth I'm the one who has to make it happen.

[Smitty]

(10-31-2011 04:14 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(10-30-2011 11:05 PM)Arcais Wrote:  

For now I'm just going to believe in myself.

I think thats the most important thing to believe in. Study yourself, master yourself, have faith in yourself.

I do believe in a higher power but down here on earth I'm the one who has to make it happen.

This x 1000.

[Chad Daring]

Spiritually, I dont believe in much, though I've got some far out ideas about cosmic beliefs.

I dont believe, per se, the Gaia theory, that there's some kind of governing conciseness to the world, but I dont not believe it either. It just makes to much sense when you question why things happen. I actually picked up the belief from a George Carlin skit when he goes on a bit of a tongue-in-cheek rant about AIDS and how its the planet trying to get rid of us by attacking us at our genetic livelihood and making it so breeding in fact kills us. Its a huge stretch, but I like the idea that things happen for a reason, but there's still no such thing as fate.

[Kish]

I believe that reality is stranger than fiction.

[Arcais]

"Join the marines."



I wont serve the government or a corporation. my philosophy is non serviam

[Giovonny]

(10-31-2011 06:42 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

I've got some far out ideas about cosmic beliefs.

I'm curious. Care to elaborate?

[Chad Daring]

(11-01-2011 03:48 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 06:42 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

I've got some far out ideas about cosmic beliefs.

I'm curious. Care to elaborate?

I guess it would be a Buddhist type of concept, though I might be way off.

It started with the bit George Carlin did where he says "the planet is fine, the people are fucked" and the other quote that really hit me was "it [the earth] will shake us off like a bad case of fleas"

He also references AIDS as being a response to humanity, and to me that makes a weird kind of sense.

Now I dont BELIEVE any of this, but to me it seems strangely probable.

The idea I have is that the earth has a sort of "consciousness" about it. Not conscious in the sense that you and I, or even animals are, but kind of like a computer. Doesn't think, doesn't understand what it is, just understands that it must react and respond to certain input in certain ways.

If you watch any of the "disaster" shows on the Discovery channel or NatGeo they usually talk about there being a "schedule" for natural disasters, that major events tend to happen every X or so years. To me you could see a disaster like that as a soft reboot. The "computer" is reseting itself.

Now take into the major diseases that have hit humanity, things like the bubonic plague, that while being incredibly contagious kind of snuck up on humanity and out of nowhere wiped out half the population of Europe in only two years.

Carlin referenced AIDS, which again, if you didn't look at it as circumstance, but as a planned attack, is a fucking brilliant way to depopulate a species. AIDS makes it so the very act of proliferation causes the species to dwindle. One person has AIDS, they have sex with another and make a child now THREE people have AIDS.

Same with Cancer. Cancer always seemed like a modern disease, I dont recall it ever being talked about in history the way it exists today, it also seems to be a modern problem in that you rarely hear of explorers discovering a tribe in the Amazon that has a member that has cancer, it only affects modernized civilizations, but it also effects civilizations that have little or nothing in common.

The very fact that cancer can just happen, even if you aren't in any obvious risk of it, seems like it could be proof that maybe there's something we dont know about how the world functions.

Again, take all that with a massive block of salt, its just an idea, something to roll around in my head when I'm bored, but to me at least, it makes a weird kind of sense that maybe the world doesn't want us here anymore so its started hurling incurable diseases at us, and sucker punching us with natural disasters (Katrina, Tsunami, Japanese Earthquake, ect)

[Pusscrook]

(11-03-2011 06:35 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

(11-01-2011 03:48 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 06:42 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

I've got some far out ideas about cosmic beliefs.

I'm curious. Care to elaborate?

Again, take all that with a massive block of salt, its just an idea, something to roll around in my head when I'm bored, but to me at least, it makes a weird kind of sense that maybe the world doesn't want us here anymore so its started hurling incurable diseases at us, and sucker punching us with natural disasters (Katrina, Tsunami, Japanese Earthquake, ect)

Thank God you didn't live 4000 years ago, you would've shit in your socks. This is child's play compared to what they were going thru. Science rules the earth, not feelings.

[Gmac]

I believe in science, that is all.

[Stitch]

The beauty of it is that science generally causes negative feedback loops that are self-regulating, so it gives the appearance of consciousness. When you add the random-chance natural disasters (not really that random), it'll look like intent. Too many rabbits? Wolf population increases with so much food. Too many wolves? They eat the rabbits down to a thread, then start dying out from starvation. Add in a forest fire at any point and an outside observer says "wow, that forest god must really be trying to kill off the [rabbits|wolves]".

We're screwing with the planet quite a bit. It'll self-regulate just fine, though that may not match with our definition of "fine". But since science has the deciding vote, too bad for us if we disagree.

[SFTD]

some untamed wild testosterone fueled aggression + some Zen + some Orthodox Christianity

[gringochileno]

I don't believe in anything supernatural. I try to form my beliefs based on where the evidence leads and I have yet to see convincing evidence for the existence of anything that isn't a part of the natural world.

[Amour Fou]

I belive in the Force.

It is strong in me.

[Giovonny]

(11-03-2011 06:35 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

I guess it would be a Buddhist type of concept, though I might be way off.

It started with the bit George Carlin did where he says "the planet is fine, the people are fucked" and the other quote that really hit me was "it [the earth] will shake us off like a bad case of fleas"

He also references AIDS as being a response to humanity, and to me that makes a weird kind of sense.

Now I dont BELIEVE any of this, but to me it seems strangely probable.

The idea I have is that the earth has a sort of "consciousness" about it. Not conscious in the sense that you and I, or even animals are, but kind of like a computer. Doesn't think, doesn't understand what it is, just understands that it must react and respond to certain input in certain ways.

If you watch any of the "disaster" shows on the Discovery channel or NatGeo they usually talk about there being a "schedule" for natural disasters, that major events tend to happen every X or so years. To me you could see a disaster like that as a soft reboot. The "computer" is reseting itself.

Now take into the major diseases that have hit humanity, things like the bubonic plague, that while being incredibly contagious kind of snuck up on humanity and out of nowhere wiped out half the population of Europe in only two years.

Carlin referenced AIDS, which again, if you didn't look at it as circumstance, but as a planned attack, is a fucking brilliant way to depopulate a species. AIDS makes it so the very act of proliferation causes the species to dwindle. One person has AIDS, they have sex with another and make a child now THREE people have AIDS.

Same with Cancer. Cancer always seemed like a modern disease, I dont recall it ever being talked about in history the way it exists today, it also seems to be a modern problem in that you rarely hear of explorers discovering a tribe in the Amazon that has a member that has cancer, it only affects modernized civilizations, but it also effects civilizations that have little or nothing in common.

The very fact that cancer can just happen, even if you aren't in any obvious risk of it, seems like it could be proof that maybe there's something we dont know about how the world functions.

Again, take all that with a massive block of salt, its just an idea, something to roll around in my head when I'm bored, but to me at least, it makes a weird kind of sense that maybe the world doesn't want us here anymore so its started hurling incurable diseases at us, and sucker punching us with natural disasters (Katrina, Tsunami, Japanese Earthquake, ect)

Interesting, I think the earth does do some self-correcting, but I'm not sure how successful the earth is at doing that. We have had natural disasters for thousands of years and the human population is still growing fast. If the earth is trying to get rid of us, its not doing a very good job. I guess all the diseases have slowed down growth a little but humans are still here, in fact, we just reached the 7 billion people mark, and rising fast. If the earth wants to get rid of us, it needs to come up with something alot more lethel. We are populating faster then ever.

I don't think I see any Buddhism in your post?

But, thanks for sharing, I like this stuff.

And I love George Carlin.

(11-03-2011 07:16 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

I believe in science, that is all.

Everything is science right? The stuff we know, the stuff we don't know.

Science is a collection of human observations and theories. Often, as time goes on, theories get proven wrong and we replace them with new theories.

What about all the stuff science can't explain? Like like dreams, yawns, and gravity. We can barely explain why ants behave as they do.

We are barely beginning to understand the human mind. Science can't even decide if coffee is good for you or bad for you.

My point is that science can't explain everything. Maybe one day, it will.

Its a partial understanding, a human explanation. What about all the stuff a dolphin sees and thinks, isn't that science also? Man can't explain it but is still a part of nature and thus, a part of science.

I guess what I'm saying is, science can be very limiting. Science is a process to observe and explain the world. But, there are many things that science can't explain. Just because man can't explain it, doesn't mean its not possible.

[5K2D]

Arcais, I think you're looking more for a philosophy or general set of values than a religion.

I see science as the best tool we have for understanding the universe. Some of what science can't explain currently, it will explain in the future. Some of what science can't explain currently, we might not ever comprehend. And often our theories need revision. But science is doing a damn good job. It's not the only way of making decisions - there exists plenty of reasoning based on observational evidence that does not fit the rigorous criteria that science demands (lack of proper control groups, for example). But it is the most precise - that is to say, when there are conflicting hypotheses, the ones confirmed by science prevail.

Regarding coffee being good or bad for you - certain levels of coffee decrease some risks and elevate other risks. Thus, depending on each person's tolerance for different risks, the optimal level of coffee varies across the population. For example, those with dangerously high blood pressure but little risk for dementia should drink less than those with low blood pressure but higher risk of dementia.

Also, what's limited about our understanding of ants?

[Gmac]

(11-04-2011 12:19 PM)5K2D Wrote:  

Arcais, I think you're looking more for a philosophy or general set of values than a religion.

I see science as the best tool we have for understanding the universe. Some of what science can't explain currently, it will explain in the future. Some of what science can't explain currently, we might not ever comprehend. And often our theories need revision. But science is doing a damn good job. It's not the only way of making decisions - there exists plenty of reasoning based on observational evidence that does not fit the rigorous criteria that science demands (lack of proper control groups, for example). But it is the most precise - that is to say, when there are conflicting hypotheses, the ones confirmed by science prevail.

Regarding coffee being good or bad for you - certain levels of coffee decrease some risks and elevate other risks. Thus, depending on each person's tolerance for different risks, the optimal level of coffee varies across the population. For example, those with dangerously high blood pressure but little risk for dementia should drink less than those with low blood pressure but higher risk of dementia.

Also, what's limited about our understanding of ants?

You said it better than me.

[Giovonny]

(11-04-2011 12:19 PM)5K2D Wrote:  

Also, what's limited about our understanding of ants?

When they collect food, they go through a very complex process of storing the food and distributing it amoung their colony. They know just how much to bring to the queen, just how much to store for the future and just how much to keep for the rest of the day. We don't really understand how they figure this all out seamlessly, everytime. Its almost like an "instinct" that they have.

Some even use the magnetic fields of the earth to navigate themselves. Something we don't fully understand.

Other things that can't be explained fully by science are...

Gravity, cold fushion, dreams, yawns, etc.

We aren't even sure where humans came from right? Doesn't the issue of the "missing links" mean that this issue is still unresolved and unprovable either way?

95% of the universe is "dark matter", something we know very little about. Thats 95% of the universe that we can't explain.

Quantum physics is something we are just learning about. At the super-microscopic level, the laws of physics don't seem to apply. This is something we know very little about.

Most of what happens in the universe is beyong our current understanding. Wouldn't you agree?

Please correct me where I am wrong. I don't claim to be an expert.

[Gmac]

Gio, I don't know if you fully understand the topics you're bringing up.

As for missing links, are you talking about transitional fossils? Do you know the rare conditions that must exist for a fossil to be created at all?

Read more here: http://www.science20.com/between_death_a...lacy-75791

People often make the mistake of claiming that because we do not understand how something works today means that we will never understand it. Chances are, the more time that goes by, the more we will discover. That's just the way it is and always has been... and the process only continues to accelerate as we learn more and more about our world and the universe.

I also recommend watching Cosmos: A Personal Voyage -- by Carl Sagan. http://www.hulu.com/cosmos

Or: http://saganseries.com/ Especially Chapter 5

[Giovonny]

I definitley don't have a full understanding about many of these topics. I will check out those websites and videos.

As far as "missing links" (transitional fossils), I don't know much about it. Are you saying that its a scientific fact that humans evolved from apes? I wouldn't disagreee with you on that, I just thought it was an unresolved issue in science?

What about all that other stuff that I mentioned? Am I wrong about cold fushion, gravity, and quantum physics also? Aren't there many areas of science that we have a limited understanding of. Like I said before, 95% of the universe is "dark matter", and we know nothing about what it is. We don't even fully understand the atoms that make up our bodies right?

I am not arguing for the existence of a god. I'm am only stating that science has a very limited understanding of the world. There so much that science has yet to explain.

When you say that science is the only thing that you believe in, do you mean that you only believe in the discoveries and observations that science has made? Or, are you saying that you believe in everything that happens in the universe, explained by science or not? If that question make sense..

To say you believe in science means that you believe in nature. Yet, there are many things about nature that we can't explain. Do you believe in that unexplained stuff too? Or, do you only believe in things that can be explained?

[Gmac]

(11-04-2011 04:16 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

I definitley don't have a full understanding about many of these topics. I will check out those websites and videos.

As far as "missing links" (transitional fossils), I don't know much about it. Are you saying that we know for sure that humans evolved from apes? I wouldn't disagreee with you on that, I just thought it was an unresolved issue in science?

I am saying just because there aren't fossils doesn't mean anything, because fossils are extremely hard to find, much less be created.

Quote:

When you say that science is the only thing that you believe in, do you mean that you only believe in the discovories and observations that science has made? Or, are you saying that you believe in everything that happens in the universe, explained by science or not? If that question make sense..

What I mean is that I don't believe in a high power/consciousness (unless you count science or energy or whatever, which I don't). I believe whatever laws of the universe exist are responsible for everything and anything. Maybe the universe always existed, maybe there's another logical explanation. I don't claim to know the answer, or that the evolved humans of the future will know 10 billion years from now. I don't claim that they had to be created by someone either, just because we don't know doesn't mean I'm willing to jump to the most popular idea.

Almost everything is potentially explainable in due time.

[Pusscrook]

For me , science is what I use to investigate, and that is coupled with a healthy dose of intimate interpretation of that which I understand . One ,is for knowledge, which may manifest into power, and the other is wisdom , for control.

A wise skeptic is usually a good critic, because he remains open to ideas.

[5K2D]

(11-04-2011 03:49 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 12:19 PM)5K2D Wrote:  

Also, what's limited about our understanding of ants?

When they collect food, they go through a very complex process of storing the food and distributing it amoung their colony. They know just how much to bring to the queen, just how much to store for the future and just how much to keep for the rest of the day. We don't really understand how they figure this all out seamlessly, everytime. Its almost like an "instinct" that they have.

Some even use the magnetic fields of the earth to navigate themselves. Something we don't fully understand.

Other things that can't be explained fully by science are...

Gravity, cold fushion, dreams, yawns, etc.

We aren't even sure where humans came from right? Doesn't the issue of the "missing links" mean that this issue is still unresolved and unprovable either way?

95% of the universe is "dark matter", something we know very little about. Thats 95% of the universe that we can't explain.

Quantum physics is something we are just learning about. At the super-microscopic level, the laws of physics don't seem to apply. This is something we know very little about.

Most of what happens in the universe is beyong our current understanding. Wouldn't you agree?

Please correct me where I am wrong. I don't claim to be an expert.

Ants - so we don't know exactly the cognitive processes underpinning ant resource distribution; it's not magic, though. There are plenty of observable systems (natural and artificial) where a small number of locally applied rules (a limited set of behaviors for each unit) result in complex behavior of the group. Examples - fish moving in near-unison in schools, as well as a number of algorithms used to model animal behavior (hunting in packs is one, I believe). Using magnetic fields to navigate is also well-documented and present in other animals as well (e.g. pigeons). Many of these animals have redundant systems - block one and they're fine. A certain type of desert ant has three navigation systems; block one and it's fine, block two and it's confused.

Cold fusion - I think this is just a hypothesis, and not a popular one at that.

Gravity - We may not yet have direct evidence for the graviton (the particle that mediates gravity; photons mediate electromagnetism, W/Z bosons mediate the weak force, gluons mediate the strong force), but we still know plenty about gravity. We understand gravity well enough to put objects into space, and we're making advances yearly.

Dreams - We're working up to these. Give us a few decades, neuroimaging technology has some ways to go (though it's come really far, fMRI is awesome).

Missing links - we have plenty of "missing links". The problem is, every time we discover a "missing link" between fossil A and fossil B, there are two new spots to find a link - in between fossil A and the "missing link" and between the "missing link" and fossil B. Evolution is sound - to disprove it, we'd need to find fossilized rabbits from the Precambrian era, as the common example states. Each new fossil we've discovered just strengthens the theory (and "theory" doesn't mean there's scientific dispute, a scientific theory is an explanation of experimental findings that makes further predictions which can be tested. Thus, theories can be strengthened or discredited, and "proved" just means strengthened to a certain high confidence level).

95% of the universe is not dark matter. It's 4% matter, 22% dark matter, 74% dark energy. But not to just be pedantic, dark matter is just the term for something that causes gravitational effects but that for whatever reason we can't see (no light reflected off it reaching back to us). Neutrinos could make up part of this, and it is mysterious, but it's not like we'll never learn more about its nature.

Quantum theory has been around for at least a century - Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe, which postulated that electromagnetic emissions are quantized in energy, was formulated around 1900. The current problem is that we haven't been able to unite general relativity with quantum theory, not that quantum theory represents a breakdown of our understanding of physics. Quantum theory is a great description of how particles at the atomic scale operate. We know plenty of what goes on at the quantum level - the Standard Model has made many predictions which have later been confirmed by experiment.

Considering that we're sacks of meat driven by electricity, it's amazing that we've learned as much about the universe as we have. This is mostly thanks to engineering and rigorous scientific study.

[5K2D]

Continuing . . .

It's not a scientific fact that humans evolved from apes - humans are apes. Second, the correct terminology is that humans and other apes share common ancestors and split into different species in the recent past (geologically speaking).

Bottom line - do you have any idea how crazy it is that we know what we know?