Do people really believe in Angels?

[longstroke]

Whats your point?

Theres nothing wrong (or right) with being optimistic. I don't see what you're asking. Trying to feel good...(generally) feels good. 

But when you say "we are optimistic about xyz" that doesn't imply to me some sort of "bliss" as much as it does positive correlation to an expected result. 

The point is that if you are optimistic about something, that this means that there is still HOPE.

 

[futuremd]

That's the thing, the discussion doesn't have to be about what YOU believe it should be about. The user experience is deteriorated with having a sillyputty/futuremd character that continues to force his beliefs on users. I'm gonna have to talk to a mod about this because it's completely ridiculous.

What are you even talking about? I'm just as free to share my views on things as you are. It merely seems that you aren't doing the same to assert where you stand on things, so its not my responsibility to that for you. 

On top of that, there are others sharing their views and I'm not trying to "shut anyone up." It seems that you are interested in merely removing one voice out of many.

You're just as free to participate as anyone else...or not. 

 

[futuremd]

Whats your point?

Theres nothing wrong (or right) with being optimistic. I don't see what you're asking. Trying to feel good...(generally) feels good. 

But when you say "we are optimistic about xyz" that doesn't imply to me some sort of "bliss" as much as it does positive correlation to an expected result. 

The point is that if you are optimistic about something, that this means that there is still HOPE.

...what?

Now you're just twisting terms to fit into this meme that you want to universally apply to every context. Its somewhat dishonest your behalf.

Expecting a positive result that aligns with the design of an experiment doesn't equate to this sort of special emotional plea for "hope." The results will be what they will be. That doesn't equate to some "longing" for some unmet goal. 

 

[brainwashed21]

dam future.. i hate you nd like you at the same time. you snap whenever i say something in general terms.. what the hell can i say without you trying to kill me? how does believing in something not make it true??? the dam placebo is psychological right? they physically took something to trick them into feeling better. they believed and it happened. much like the bread they give you at church, its suppose to be the body of christ but obviously its not. but if psychologically it works for you, how can i discredit that??? religion is a mind state that works for some.. the actions that come from it, is where the proof lies. just like philosophy,,, science is what validates your thoughts.

i know the placebo is not a thing, neither is science, spidermans not real.. cool. but if your mind is powerful enough to create a thought and make it happen, then you cant discredit imagination or peoples beliefs.

 

[cj863]

What are you even talking about? I'm just as free to share my views on things as you are. It merely seems that you aren't doing the same to assert where you stand on things, so its not my responsibility to that for you. 

If it calls for killing ENTIRE threads because I can't let go of my conviction then I don't need to say it. I.E. YOU. Don't act like you don't know what's going on here because this is the same thing you were banned for before if I'm not mistaken.

 

[brainwashed21]

i dont feel attacked by md in no way.. continue the conversation. if you get butt hurt over something your reading online, turn the computer off and get some fresh air

 

[longstroke]

...what?

Now you're just twisting terms to fit into this meme that you want to universally apply to every context. Its somewhat dishonest your behalf.

Expecting a positive result that aligns with the design of an experiment doesn't equate to this sort of special emotional plea for "hope."

I am not twisting anything. If there is a patient who is extremely ill, then let's say that the patient is using an experimental drug prescribed by the doctor, and then suddenly the patient shows signs of recovery.

Wouldn't that give reason for optimism? Shouldn't you be hopeful?

If not, we've got to work on your bedside manner my man. It sounds as if you'd be the guy who says,  that's it, you are going to die, and there is no god.

Bye.

Next.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Well, my initial intentions weren't for this to turn into a debate or anything like that. Look at my responses. It wasn't an intentional anti-religion thread. Think of it as more as my form of 'asking a believer.'

 

[brainwashed21]

I am not twisting anything. If there is a patient who is extremely ill, then let's say that the patient is using an experimental drug prescribed by the doctor, and then suddenly the patient shows signs of recovery.

Wouldn't that give reason for optimism? Shouldn't you be hopeful?

If not, we've got to work on your bedside manner my man. It sounds as if you'd be the guy who says,  that's it, you are going to die, and there is no god.

Bye.

Next.

haha.. exactly.. if theres not a bunch of scientific data proving something, then theres no hope for it working. thats a narrow mind if you ask me

 

[futuremd]

dam future.. i hate you nd like you at the same time. you snap whenever i say something in general terms.. what the hell can i say without you trying to kill me?

You say RIDICULOUS things like "well I think its true, so it must be real"

That will NEVER make sense.

 how does believing in something not make it true???

*sigh*

You're trolling at this point.

Dead serious.

Batman is therefore the savior we need, but not the one we deserve. 

the dam placebo is psychological right?

Yes.

 they physically took something to trick them into feeling better.

Yes.

 they believed and it happened.

Yes...but the thing they thought helped them, did NOT help them. 

much like the bread they give you at church, its suppose to be the body of christ but obviously its not. but if psychologically it works for you, how can i discredit that???

You can discredit it because it does not actually exist.

religion is a mind state that works for some..

It works because it shields the actual source of change and places it on some external agent, which actually isn't the source of said change. Its within the person itself. 

the actions that come from it, is where the proof lies.

No. The external thing that you THINK is helping you IS NOT. Thats the placebo effect. There is no external aid. Its all in the mind. 

just like philosophy,,, science is what validates your thoughts.

NO.

Science doesn't have a stance on my thoughts. It merely collects data to support a particular conclusion. Thats it. 

i know the placebo is not a thing,

So stop saying that thinking something makes it real.

It doesn't. 

neither is science,

What. 

Is.

Wrong.

With.

You?

Yeah. The pursuit of knowledge and backing it up with evidence doesn't exist. At all. 

spidermans not real..

You sure?


According to you, since I think its real, then Spiderman is in fact real.

See how flawed that is?

cool. but if your mind is powerful enough to create a thought and make it happen, then you cant discredit imagination or peoples beliefs.

I actually can.

If that thing does not exist, then you can't say that it does, no matter how much you believe it.

I don't deny their experiences, but the reality of said experiences can be evaluated and validated. 

 

[futuremd]

i dont feel attacked by md in no way.. continue the conversation. if you get butt hurt over something your reading online, turn the computer off and get some fresh air

Repped. 

 

[futuremd]

...what?

Now you're just twisting terms to fit into this meme that you want to universally apply to every context. Its somewhat dishonest your behalf.

Expecting a positive result that aligns with the design of an experiment doesn't equate to this sort of special emotional plea for "hope."

I am not twisting anything. If there is a patient who is extremely ill, then let's say that the patient is using an experimental drug prescribed by the doctor, and then suddenly the patient shows signs of recovery.

Wouldn't that give reason for optimism? Shouldn't you be hopeful?

Hopeful for what????

What does that mean?

Thats not optimism. Thats a result that objective aids the patient. What does that have to do with hope?

Yeah. Thats something I would enjoy to see but what does that have to do with being "hopeful?" 

If not, we've got to work on your bedside manner my man. It sounds as if you'd be the guy who says,  that's it, you are going to die, and there is no god.

Bye.

Next.

I'm not going to sit there and ruin someones emotional state, but that doesn't change my resolve to remain objective and not unnecessarily sugar-coat things. 

Theres a difference between not being a **** to remain employed and still having the view that things are pretty cut and dry in the back of your head. 

 

[Master Zik]

This is NOT true for all and every situation. You're speaking so loosely and in generalizations as if it's an absolute.

How did the Europeans enslave the Africans?

By taking away any hope of survival outside of slavery, SON. 

How is anyone enslaved and then kept under the thumb of the oppressor?

By eliminating any thought of freedom, of which is inspired through HOPE.

One example, does not make your statement true for all instances. I could easily say it wasn't taking away hope that led to the continued enslavement of Africans or any ppl at any time but that it was taking away knowledge that led to it. Hell I could go further and say without knowledge there is no hope and just substitute every single capitalized and in bold use of the word hope for knowledge to give you a different view point to show why you're not correct.

The assumptions in your statement alone have you taking too many things for granted. I could say the survival instinct alone is what drives humanity to survive which does not involve hope at all. Maslow's hierarchy, much?

I don't give a damn as who, or what, you've studied from 17th century.

Who said anything about the 17th century? Aristotle, Confusicus, Plato, Socrates, Lu Bu, even the Buddha, etc. are mentioned and you're limiting yourself to the 17th century? The way you're talking is like philosophy does not exist today. That these same principles and concepts are not being taught at this very moment.

We all can read and then comprehend. What they thought back then, is no longer relevant today.

With this statement right here you confirmed my initial response to you about not studying history or philosophy or history of philosophy. I implore you to at least look up existentialism. For you to make such a bias statement is critical to what I'm talking about you not comprehending. I never claimed all philosophers were always right. What we're specifically talking about has nothing to do with what they about death and taking a damn bath. This has to be a straw man argument at this point from you. Them being wrong about one thing does not in any way take away from their long lasting impact and contributions that are still relevant today. You're saying these things and not even aware why or how you're wrong. You're not even aware what philosophical concept you're utilizing by saying hope forces humanity to survive. This is ignorance and arrogance is not beneficial in this discussion if I can even call it a discussion at this point.

Hell, most of those clowns in Europe back then, even the PHILOSOPHERS, thought that simply by taking a bath, that you'd catch your death of cold. So they invented Perfume, instead of soap. Point here is, most of the stuff that they thought to believe, has been proven to be WRONG. 

Please go ahead and tell me how the Socratic method is wrong or modus ponens or the veil of ignorance.

My point to Future MD was simple, HOPE is what drives humanity forward. Any progress that is made in this world, begins with HOPE. The first person to do anything, didn't know for sure if they were headed in the right direction. In most cases, they stumbled upon stuff by accident in regard to discovery.

I already told you why this point is wrong. You haven't even begun to state why it's right or why anyone should believe what you say to be true other than referencing Dr. Seuss.

There was a time that many of those people that you admire from the 15th century, thought the World was FLAT. Those navigators who went out to see what was really out there, HOPED that they didn't fall off the face of the earth. They didn't know if they would, as those Europeans were also Christian, thinking that the Bible was correct.

15th century now? The 1400s? There's a clear disconnect here. Philosophers for the most part are not concerned with some of these scientific questions you keep bringing up. What does one thinking the world is flat have to do with the nature of man? Can not a person be right on one topic and wrong in another? You keep looking to label the names I'm mentioning. Please tell me how Plato or Lu Bu were Christian. What does the world being flat have to do with the nature of man or whether or not hope forces humanity to survive. This is just another tangent response from you. Stay on topic.

Bringing it back to the good Doctor, especially since you still seem to not be able to comprehend, even with all of your so called study,

One fish, two fish.
Red fish, blue fish.
Black fish,blue fish.
Old fish, new fish.
This one has a little star.
This one has a little car.
SAY!
What a lot of fish there are.

-Dr Seuss One Fish Two Fish


The good doctor is talking about discovery. All of which also begins with HOPE.

"He who despairs over an event is a coward, but he who holds hope for the human condition is a fool."
“Most times, it's just a lot easier not to let the world know what's wrong."
"He that lives upon hope will die fasting."

All journey begins there.

Another blanket statement without any consideration for anything else but you're narrow viewpoint.

I'm sure when you quote me again you'll come through with some quotes from the Cat in the Hat, selectively quote what you want to respond to and not genuinely take anything I've posted in to consideration. I will wait for you to actually make an argument for your post instead all of the tangents, straw men, arguments, and insults.

So in short, we can't have a discussion about the unexplained on NT because our resident future medical practitioner will stop at nothing to force his belief that science can explain any and everything on us. RIP good threads on NT.

Actually we are discussing it. Just cuz you don't agree or like what he has to say doesn't mean we're not discussing it.

Seems what you want is for ppl to speculate about the unexplained and just post any idea that comes to mind and that would constitute as a good thread on NT. I don't think that's the purpose or intent or essence of this thread but OP could answer that.

 

[presequel]

anyone read The Power of Habit?

I'd strongly suggest that for this. There's a good chapter in there about belief and changing habits, strong ones such as alcohol or smoking addictions. Against all knowledge of science and studies, its usually the BELIEF of something, anything, that causes a person to change or improve for the better.

“My name is John and I’m an alcoholic.”

John turned to AA the first time when a car accident he caused left his son with a broken arm. After a year of sobriety, he felt his drinking was under control and he stopped going to meetings.

Then his mother was diagnosed with cancer and he fell off the wagon. Another DUI convinced him if he didn’t get sober, he’d eventually kill his kids. He started going to meetings again.

This time, his sponsor stressed the importance of belief in a higher power. John was an atheist and it was a difficult concept for him. But, he “worked” at believing there was something bigger than him. He’s now been sober for seven years and he credits his sobriety to his belief in a higher power.

Belief in an integral part of AA. Habit replacement alone works fairly well until a major life stress occurs. Then, those, like John, who believe in a higher power are better equipped to stay sober.

The belief doesn’t have to be belief in God. Belief itself is the key. “Belief was the ingredient that made a reworked habit loop into a permanent behavior.”

 

[futuremd]

What are you even talking about? I'm just as free to share my views on things as you are. It merely seems that you aren't doing the same to assert where you stand on things, so its not my responsibility to that for you. 

If it calls for killing ENTIRE threads because I can't let go of my conviction then I don't need to say it. I.E. YOU. Don't act like you don't know what's going on here because this is the same thing you were banned for before if I'm not mistaken.

Thats your decision, not mine.

You are just as free to engage in the discussion as anyone else.

If anything right now you're disrupting it by complaining about the frequency of another poster, instead of asserting views you want to see yourself.

You wouldn't have a problem if there were different usernames asserting the same comments, would you?

I'm interested in the comments themselves.

You seem to be more concerned with developing narratives behind screen names. 

 

[longstroke]

haha.. exactly.. if theres not a bunch of scientific data proving something, then theres no hope for it working. thats a narrow mind if you ask me

I understand where he is coming from, but damn, there has to be room for a little sensitivity, especially in that profession. My doctor told me, bedside manner is just as important as the diagnosis.

 

[Master Zik]

and if you need a scientific project to show us hope is real.. im going to be real mad. waiting for response..

Fam, I don't if you've been following this back and forth from the jump but don't tell me you 100% agree with what dude is saying and have no objections or questions at all? If so, that's kinda sad and goes to my point in another thread that philosophy continues to be under appreciated for faux realism/intellectualism/spiritualism, politics, and any other tool used to manipulate other than explain and explore. I mean this dude here is trying his best to dismiss philosophy when he is crudely using it in his own twisted way.

Too many ppl to drag out the cave.

 

[futuremd]

haha.. exactly.. if theres not a bunch of scientific data proving something, then theres no hope for it working. thats a narrow mind if you ask me

I understand where he is coming from, but damn, there has to be room for a little sensitivity, especially in that profession. My doctor told me, bedside manner is just as important as the diagnosis.

Again, my outward expression towards others is not mitigated with how I feel personally or me sharing my ACTUAL views on this board.

I'm pretty sensitive to the nuances that people concern themselves with on a daily basis. I'm not out to step on toes.

HOWEVER, if we're going to have an honest discussion about the root of things, then yes, I will not shield how I really feel to continue to defend the walls of the very things we're supposed to be challenging the meanings of. 

 

[futuremd]

and if you need a scientific project to show us hope is real.. im going to be real mad. waiting for response..

Fam, I don't if you've been following this back and forth from the jump but don't tell me you 100% agree with what dude is saying and have no objections or questions at all? If so, that's kinda sad and goes to my point in another thread that philosophy continues to be under appreciated for faux realism/intellectualism/spiritualism, politics, and any other tool used to manipulate other than explain and explore. I mean this dude here is trying his best to dismiss philosophy when he is crudely using it in his own twisted way.

Too many ppl to drag out the cave.

I don't know if you're referring to me, but I'm not trying to dismiss philosophy. Its useful...when its limited to what it can actually have a stance on.

Philosophy alone doesn't explain how vision works and we have people in here thinking that they've got it by merely throwing thoughts on the wall doing so.

That won't get you anywhere. At some point or another you've GOT to understand now the neuroscience and psychology interplay to give rise to our more recent understanding of these things. Sheer speculation doesn't get you this far. 

 

[Master Zik]

and if you need a scientific project to show us hope is real.. im going to be real mad. waiting for response..

Fam, I don't if you've been following this back and forth from the jump but don't tell me you 100% agree with what dude is saying and have no objections or questions at all? If so, that's kinda sad and goes to my point in another thread that philosophy continues to be under appreciated for faux realism/intellectualism/spiritualism, politics, and any other tool used to manipulate other than explain and explore. I mean this dude here is trying his best to dismiss philosophy when he is crudely using it in his own twisted way.


Too many ppl to drag out the cave.

I don't know if you're referring to me, but I'm not trying to dismiss philosophy. Its useful...when its limited to what it can actually have a stance on.

Philosophy alone doesn't explain how vision works and we have people in here thinking that they've got it by merely throwing thoughts on the wall doing so.

That won't get you anywhere. At some point or another you've GOT to understand now the neuroscience and psychology interplay to give rise to our more recent understanding of these things. Sheer speculation doesn't get you this far. 

Nah I was talking to Brainwashed. Cuz it seems he's agreeing with Longstroke in his response to me about hope. The argument was never about if hope exists or proving it exists.

I know the limitations and benefits of philosophy and think it can work fine with science. The two are not opposed to each other.

This is NOT true for all and every situation. You're speaking so loosely and in generalizations as if it's an absolute.

How did the Europeans enslave the Africans?

By taking away any hope of survival outside of slavery, SON.

How is anyone enslaved and then kept under the thumb of the oppressor?

By eliminating any thought of freedom, of which is inspired through HOPE.

I don't give a damn as who, or what, you've studied from 17th century. We all can read and then comprehend. What they thought back then, is no longer relevant today. Hell, most of those clowns in Europe back then, even the PHILOSOPHERS, thought that simply by taking a bath, that you'd catch your death of cold. So they invented Perfume, instead of soap. Point here is, most of the stuff that they thought to believe, has been proven to be WRONG.

My point to Future MD was simple, HOPE is what drives humanity forward. Any progress that is made in this world, begins with HOPE. The first person to do anything, didn't know for sure if they were headed in the right direction. In most cases, they stumbled upon stuff by accident in regard to discovery.

There was a time that many of those people that you admire from the 15th century, thought the World was FLAT. Those navigators who went out to see what was really out there, HOPED that they didn't fall off the face of the earth. They didn't know if they would, as those Europeans were also Christian, thinking that the Bible was correct.

Bringing it back to the good Doctor, especially since you still seem to not be able to comprehend, even with all of your so called study,

One fish, two fish.
Red fish, blue fish.
Black fish,blue fish.
Old fish, new fish.
This one has a little star.
This one has a little car.
SAY!
What a lot of fish there are.

-Dr Seuss One Fish Two Fish


The good doctor is talking about discovery. All of which also begins with HOPE.

All journey begins there.

Hope isn't a thing. Its a mere assertion that people want things.


Thats not even the case. Its a sort of special pleading.

The will to survive or even efforts to live is not the same as "hope."

Not every discovery is a matter of "hope" nor is every revelation.

 

[brainwashed21]

your the one that said science wasnt a thing. i was just agreeing.. nd ok i see the point where just cause i believe something it doesnt make it real.. but you have to think of something before you make it happen.. just because i never make it doesnt mean it cant be done. so your thoughts cant always be dismissed.. because you couldve made it happen. just like any new innovations, they thought about it before they made it happen.. couldve wouldve shouldve doesnt mean squat tho, i know. look, theres religion with appointed members that all have duties,, just like government.. they all have an agenda to carry out.. does their belief nd opinions in making the world a better place get discredited because theres no scientific data backing it up? does it make it right or wrong? catholics says theres god, muslims say mohammed.. obama says his health care is good, romney says no. we wont know until times tells us the facts. do you see how science doesnt matter when theres hope and belief in something that we really have no control over? where belief by itself is what makes things real..

 

[longstroke]

You implore me to do what? One of my favs in existentialism is a fellow who stated this,

Without religion, man is condemned to his freedoms.

Albert Camus

Also, I've had conversations with Miles Davis when I was a kid, and he told me of discussions he had with Jean Paul Sartre in Paris, which at the time, I didn't know who the hell he was, nor did I care, but I did much later.

The main issue that I have with pompous and presumptuous individuals such as yourself, is just because people disagree with you, that they must not be aware of what you are supposedly aware of.

I implore YOU to read more Dr. Seuss.  

One example, does not make your statement true for all instances. I could easily say it wasn't taking away hope that led to the continued enslavement of Africans or any ppl at any time but that it was taking away knowledge that led to it.

Hope, comes before knowledge. You've got to take that first step. With that first step, you HOPE that you don't fall on your ***. That next step is what gives you the knowledge that you can do it.

 

[futuremd]

your the one that said science wasnt a thing. i was just agreeing.

I said "science" is not a thing in the manner that "religion" is a thing.

Science is a process.

Religion is an entity that asserts things.

Apples and Peanuts. 

nd ok i see the point where just cause i believe something it doesnt make it real.. but you have to think of something before you make it happen..

Not always.

 just because i never make it doesnt mean it cant be done.

No one said that.

But if you assert that it can be done, then you must do it. 

If it hasn't been done, no one is saying it can't. 

Until its done, then its neutral towards one direction or the other. Essentially: "I don't know"

so your thoughts cant always be dismissed..

Sometimes, yes they can. If you assert that spiderman is real and you can't support that notion, it doesn't mean spiderman isn't real, but merely that you haven't shown that it is. 

because you couldve made it happen.

Nope. Could have, is not "did" 

 just like any new innovations, they thought about it before they made it happen..

Not always. 

Not every innovation is the result of a specific plan. Far more revelations and inventions have been the result of mindless tinkering than meticulous planning. 

 couldve wouldve shouldve doesnt mean squat tho, i know.

So stop doing that and using it as an argument. 

 look, theres religion with appointed members that all have duties,, just like government.. they all have an agenda to carry out.. does their belief nd opinions in making the world a better place get discredited because theres no scientific data backing it up?

Science doesn't have a stance on whats good or bad, nor does it define whats good or bad. We do. We make those rules and establish those standards.

But when their beliefs ASSERT absolute claims such as, talking to god, then yes we have a problem because you're asserting something you can't back up.

Religions themselves could be reasonable, if they stopped asserting things that they can't substantiate. 

does it make it right or wrong?

Thats up to you to decide.

 catholics says theres god, muslims say mohammed.. obama says his health care is good, romney says no. we wont know until times tells us the facts.

Statistics allow us to see the effects of decisions. Science allows us to gather evidence to support claims.

What we do with the data up to us.

The data itself is agnostic with regard to our definitions of "benefit" or "detriment"

 do you see how science doesnt matter when theres hope and belief in something that we really have no control over?

What are you talking about?

This makes no sense and honestly makes you sound like you're trying to use "deepitudes" to sound poetic and transcendent. You just sound confused. 

Science matters when we need to determine the veracity of a claim. 

where belief by itself is what makes things real..

If belief makes things real, where is Batman? 

 

[brainwashed21]

Nah I was talking to Brainwashed. Cuz it seems he's agreeing with Longstroke in his response to me about hope. The argument was never about if hope exists or proving it exists.
I know the limitations and benefits of philosophy and think it can work fine with science. The two are not opposed to each other.

i was agreeing with longstroke talking about hope towards md.. hope in itself doesnt get things done, but without it then motivation would be subject to be as worthless as ****

 

[offwhitewhite]

What result are you talking about?

I just told you in very layman's terms how color perception works. 

I'm talking about a thought. If I tell you to think about a ice cream. You can feel the texture of the ice cream itself and the cone. You can see it. You can smell the waffle cone and the vanilla. You can even see it melt over time if your imagination is good enough. But you can't prove it to anybody else but yourself. You can tell me what parts of the brain are working to produce that result, but you can't prove the result itself.