Astrology, spiritual ant other alternative stuff

I always find it funny how scientists always think that everything can be explained. So what if the cause of this is say something that wouldn't be able to be tested or observed in a controlled environment until 20 to 30 years from now, when we had the technology or (comprehension maybe) to test or observe. Therefore it did exist, it is just that we were limited in to what we could test scientifically based on our means as a species or technology wise.

So even though it was there in our midst, we just shunned it for make believe because we could not prove it. This just seems foolish to me or just a way out to disprove something, when it was there all along. The same thing could be said of DNA. Most people in the 1970's or 80's probably couldn't comprehend or believe what is happening with DNA these days. Sure without proof a scientist has nothing to go by. I understand this, but denying that something exists because it cannot (yet) be proven, just seems like ignorance or arrogance.

Maybe being more open minded of the scenario of which I just mentioned in the last paragraph might lead to new possibilities, discoveries, or developments which would lead possibly a quicker resolution or means in scientifically observing these things.
Why condemn something that could very well just be far beyond our levels of comprehension at this particuliar moment in our time?

my thoughts exactly.

imagine this 100 years ago:
"-dude, wouldn't be cool if there was a way to comunicate at long distances?
-duuuuude whata you talkin about? lol
-yeah you know, if there was those thing in the air, that could transmit informations
-lol are you high dude?
-no dude, i drank some but i'm ok. Like waves that could take information to another place
-lolololol are you telling me that you want to create invisible air waves to transmit information from one place to another? lolololol
-yeah lol, i'll call it radio
-srsly dude, gimme the vodka, you had enough"



maybe 100 years from now there will be some special googles that can easily see dark matters, even if still haven't been proved. Or you can keep in your safe shell, where you never try, so you're never wrong.
 
You guys are missing the point ENTIRELY.

Could there be forms of interaction of which our current knowledge is unaware? Damn well there could.

HOWEVER.

Ghosts and telekynesis and general new age stupidity causes OBSERVABLE effects. OBSERVABLE. I'm not asking to see ghosts, I'm asking to see EVIDENCE of their existence. No one has ever been able to prove anything, EVERY single phenomenon was adequately debunked. That's a fair, strong and clear case AGAINST it.

It's like. I claim now there exists a vase of the Ming dinasty in orbit among the debris in Saturn's rings. If ANYONE believes that, he's an idiot. Yet, not only no one's been able to prove me wrong (we know little about saturn's rings and we probably won't ever catalog every stone there), as there is no technology today available to do so. HEEEEY, so let's be open minded! There might be a ming vase there after all :D

No, I won't be open minded. I'd rather admit that I was wrong 30 years from today than be a fool now.
 
Multiquoting is gay!!!!!

In regards to Leandro's claim of Trickery.

I always find it funny how scientists always think that everything can be explained. So what if the cause of this is say something that wouldn't be able to be tested or observed in a controlled environment until 20 to 30 years from now, when we had the technology or (comprehension maybe) to test or observe. Therefore it did exist, it is just that we were limited in to what we could test scientifically based on our means as a species or technology wise.

So even though it was there in our midst, we just shunned it for make believe because we could not prove it. This just seems foolish to me or just a way out to disprove something, when it was there all along. The same thing could be said of DNA. Most people in the 1970's or 80's probably couldn't comprehend or believe what is happening with DNA these days. Sure without proof a scientist has nothing to go by. I understand this, but denying that something exists because it cannot (yet) be proven, just seems like ignorance or arrogance.

Maybe being more open minded of the scenario of which I just mentioned in the last paragraph might lead to new possibilities, discoveries, or developments which would lead possibly a quicker resolution or means in scientifically observing these things.
Why condemn something that could very well just be far beyond our levels of comprehension at this particuliar moment in our time?

I'm reading a book about this right now. The section is about "good excuses". Basically it says this: our consciouness forms logical premises to apply rational thought with its ability to reason. Reason has its benefits and liabilities; when reason urges us to cling to the known, go with the odds, and stay with the familiar, it's at the expense of our feelings or intuitions and cuts us off from discovering our fullest potential. An example that the author used was Albert Einstein. With the logic and reason of his time he thought that we would never be able to obtain nuclear energy but due to his feelings of intuition to go against the odds, eventually the contrary was true. Just because tests fail do not make things impossible, it just means it hasn't been figured out yet. The ones that grandstand their opinions as "the truth" like I said is like a living death; the more intelligent way of perceiving this is by saying "I don't know" and attempt to find an answer through our questions.
 
What the fuck? If you show him proof that he's wrong, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't admit he was wrong.

You have showed him nothing resembling proof

and how exactly am I supposed to do that? pay him a ticket to Croatia, take him to my friend and piss my friend off again the same way he/she was pissed the last time? :lol:

you know what; forget the whole thing. in fact, Ill just quote my friend on this one (translated to english), "you try introducing fire to a neanderthal - what the hell do you think he's going to do when he sees you holding a flaming stick or something?!
I don't want a bunch of idiots breathing down my neck calling me Satan's child, or self proclaimed scientists observing me and turning me into a lab rat, and I certainly don't want some hags or crazy lunatics who think I talk to ghosts calling me and asking me if I can get in touch with their dead relative!"
:D

so just forget it... there are no spirits or ghosts, no mental power in the world that can move an object... there is no life in space other than ours, and we have no souls - just bodies. what we see and what we're told is the only truth and nothing other than the physical exists.
thank you for listening, good night!
 
"you try introducing fire to a neanderthal - what the hell do you think he's going to do when he sees you holding a flaming stick or something?!

*facepalm*

so just forget it... there are no spirits or ghosts, no mental power in the world that can move an object... there is no life in space other than ours, and we have no souls - just bodies. what we see and what we're told is the only truth and nothing other than the physical exists.
thank you for listening, good night!

I hope you weren't being sarcastic :erk:

Edit: I need to realize I am arguing with a woman. Not sexist, just saying... generally women think in a different way.
 
and how exactly am I supposed to do that? pay him a ticket to Croatia, take him to my friend and piss my friend off again the same way he/she was pissed the last time? :lol:

You DO realise that would still prove nothing, right?

If you think that seeing is believing, you have much to learn.
 
Edit: I need to realize I am arguing with a woman. Not sexist, just saying... generally women think in a different way.

I hope you're american or danish so I won't have to feel bad about insulting you :saint:

and yah, I probably do think different from you, since my IQ being above average doesn't make us any more alike I would say. :Smug:



which reminds me, what are you still doing on this thread? ooo, you must like me... :D you like me a lot! aww, that's so sweet!
 


so just forget it... there are no spirits or ghosts, no mental power in the world that can move an object... there is no life in space other than ours, and we have no souls - just bodies. what we see and what we're told is the only truth and nothing other than the physical exists.
thank you for listening, good night!

What a pointless, shallow, and lame existence that sounds like. :(
 
If it's the truth, who cares.

For example, I wish with my life that practical interstellar travel were possible, but to our best knowledge, it's not. There might come a breakthrough, but it's probably not possible. Still, if it's the truth, I have to deal with it.
 
You DO realise that would still prove nothing, right?

If you think that seeing is believing, you have much to learn.

Personal experience is enough to make someone believe and I'm sure she's not the only one with this experience so it's too general to discount all of the data around the world as erroneous or discredible . It's just you have never had such an experience, you have never seen or felt these things so you're skeptical. That's why I feel that science and spirtuality should join forces so that we could study and better understand the frequency of the metaphysical, miracles and the power of intention. Stay open to the possibilities and face the polarity Leandro, maybe you'll experience the mystical one day; I would love you to expand your awareness so that you may share it with the world as you do with your scientific and linear knowledge.
 
That's why I feel that science and spirtuality should join forces so that we could study and better understand the frequency of the metaphysical, miracles and the power of intention. Stay open to the possibilities and face the polarity Leandro, maybe you'll experience the mystical one day; I would love you to expand your awareness so that you may share it with the world as you do with your scientific and linear knowledge.

Science is objective and encompasses all posibilities and their probabilities before putting forth its hypothesis.. it's anything but linear and sterile like you're suggesting..I don't think you fully acknowledge or grasp the nature of scientific enquiry..