From: Panayiotis Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 01:48:58 +0200 Organization: Central Communications Facility, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Lines: 66 Message-ID: References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: dia-ppp5.ccf.auth.gr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 trialware Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.grnet.gr!news.auth.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33113 On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:53:03 GMT, pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote: > Raul Garcia wrote >>Don?t you belive in GOD? > >I personally don't (lack of evidence). What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? In the same manner, people of the middle ages should not believe that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, because they would have no evidence about it. Would it be right? No. This is just an example. But it has happened many times throughout history and it has proved that science is constantly growing. From one perspective, the ideology of the skeptics can be valuable. They work like firewalls. When you configure a firewall, usually you start by shutting down access to every packet from outside. Then you define access lists to tell the firewall what packets are permitted to pass through it. In the same manner, skeptics act like that; they start by not letting anything pass (not believing anything) and then they make holes by letting some packets pass (believe something only when they have evidence about it). For firewalls, this is the ideal case, because it's the safest way to block access to all non-proper packets. But the idea of this is to create an isolated 'place' that can 'see' only that which is allowed for it to see. Just because the rest are considered untrusty. However, when people adopt this ideology in their lives, they are creating an isolated point of view, where they only see what is allowed for them to see. And the only things that are allowed for them to see are just a small portion of all that is. You can open your eyes, or you can continue building 'firewalls' around you, and live in your own private, bullet-proof world. Maybe because you're afraid to see what's outside? Network admins are afraid of malicious users and hackers... what are you afraid of? Does the unknown scare you the same way darkness scared you when you were young kids? I believe that your world is only a projection of what exists. Physical Projection. You project there all the time. Some people have managed to enlarge their projection of this world, and called it the Astral. Thus, they project there, occasianally, and call it Astral Projection. Their world is larger than yours. But from your own perspective, it seems fictional, as 2-D people would think of you. Just like an ostrich, skeptics put their heads in a hole in a ground. Because they can't see what's frightening them, they feel safe. Now, THAT is an illusion. And please provide evidence that it's not. Panayiotis P.S.: Please note, that even though skeptics feel the duty to inform usad persuade believers of the illusion in which they believe, I will not to persuade you of the illusion which you believe. You can believe whatever makes you feel happier. There will come a time for everyone to open their eyes and minds. It's just that it will take longer to come to you. ###### Message-ID: <38A0D33B.B0A46F6D@privatei.com> From: The Original Ken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 75 Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 19:38:51 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.131.176.186 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 950064164 204.131.176.186 (Tue, 08 Feb 2000 19:42:44 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 19:42:44 MDT Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33068 Hi Panayiotis, Well, put. I personally wouldn't care about the tunnel vision most sceptixs must see their life through, but unfortunately the problem is worse than that. Sceptixs also limit the rate at which progress in science is made. At times even bringing it to a sheer halt. This is most definitely a problem. There are severe limits in our understanding of a great many things, and sceptixs, by their insistance on only allowing for theories that are based on evidence don't even recognize the damage they are doing. In order to grow, science needs fresh, new, unusual theories, especially at this stage of the game when reductionism has gone as far as it's going to go. Oh well, what can you do? Ken Panayiotis wrote: > What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to > be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? In the > same manner, people of the middle ages should not believe that the > Earth is not the center of the Universe, because they would have no > evidence about it. Would it be right? No. > > This is just an example. But it has happened many times throughout > history and it has proved that science is constantly growing. > > From one perspective, the ideology of the skeptics can be valuable. > They work like firewalls. When you configure a firewall, usually you > start by shutting down access to every packet from outside. Then you > define access lists to tell the firewall what packets are permitted to > pass through it. In the same manner, skeptics act like that; they > start by not letting anything pass (not believing anything) and then > they make holes by letting some packets pass (believe something only > when they have evidence about it). > > For firewalls, this is the ideal case, because it's the safest way to > block access to all non-proper packets. But the idea of this is to > create an isolated 'place' that can 'see' only that which is allowed > for it to see. Just because the rest are considered untrusty. > > However, when people adopt this ideology in their lives, they are > creating an isolated point of view, where they only see what is > allowed for them to see. And the only things that are allowed for them > to see are just a small portion of all that is. > > You can open your eyes, or you can continue building 'firewalls' > around you, and live in your own private, bullet-proof world. Maybe > because you're afraid to see what's outside? Network admins are afraid > of malicious users and hackers... what are you afraid of? Does the > unknown scare you the same way darkness scared you when you were young > kids? > > I believe that your world is only a projection of what exists. > Physical Projection. You project there all the time. Some people have > managed to enlarge their projection of this world, and called it the > Astral. Thus, they project there, occasianally, and call it Astral > Projection. Their world is larger than yours. But from your own > perspective, it seems fictional, as 2-D people would think of you. > > Just like an ostrich, skeptics put their heads in a hole in a ground. > Because they can't see what's frightening them, they feel safe. > > Now, THAT is an illusion. And please provide evidence that it's not. > > Panayiotis > > P.S.: Please note, that even though skeptics feel the duty to inform > usad persuade believers of the illusion in which they believe, I will > not to persuade you of the illusion which you believe. You can believe > whatever makes you feel happier. There will come a time for everyone > to open their eyes and minds. It's just that it will take longer to > come to you. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: 09 Feb 2000 20:23:01 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 83 Message-ID: <6u3dr2i3je.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> <38A0D33B.B0A46F6D@privatei. com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 950124181 455 10.0.3.2 (9 Feb 2000 19:23:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Feb 2000 19:23:01 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33120 The Original Ken writes: > > worse than that. Sceptixs also limit the rate at which progress in > science is made. At times even bringing it to a sheer halt. This is most > definitely a problem. But only to people who depend on "official" science for their own progress. Unfortunately they are many, although their number is dropping as more and more people are losing belief in authorities of any type. > great many things, and sceptixs, by their insistance on only allowing for > theories that are based on evidence don't even recognize the damage they The problem is not them demanding evidence. But rather them dogmatically declaring the observations (= evidence) of and interpretations by OOBEers for false and not even being prepared to do the experiments themselves (which would give them experience and so evidence to make own interpretations which they could then discuss with us). > are doing. In order to grow, science needs fresh, new, unusual theories, Definitely. The more theories the better. More likely to hit what is actually happening "out there". > Oh well, what can you do? Stop waisting time on them. Get on with discovering and being (real-) skeptical of our experiences. Discussing our theories with those of us who are interested in such discourse. With other words: get productive instead of fighting. > Panayiotis wrote: > > > What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to > > be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? Unfortunately it seems to be. Experience apparently counts for nothing for them. Sad. But it is so. > > From one perspective, the ideology of the skeptics can be valuable. > > They work like firewalls. When you configure a firewall, usually you > > start by shutting down access to every packet from outside. Then you > > define access lists to tell the firewall what packets are permitted to > > pass through it. Nice analogy. Given their reactions to analogies up to now it is most likely wasted on them. But a nice try anyway. > > because you're afraid to see what's outside? Network admins are afraid > > of malicious users and hackers... what are you afraid of? Does the > > unknown scare you the same way darkness scared you when you were young > > kids? IMHO they are afraid of losing the path of rationality and going "mad", of becoming "crazy" people like the worser exesses seen in the middle ages. That one can be non-dogmatic and accept parapsychic theories as one equal-valid possibility under many (one also being science) and as one influence under many on ones decisions without becoming an ravaging murderous human beast seems to not be part of their "all or nothing, right or wrong" attitude to life. Lacking mental flexibility to think in gray levels some humans seem to generally degrade into dogmatism, be it fundamentalist religion or skeptix science. Their loss, not ours. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Wizzard, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic Computer: toy speeds work, you have more time to play with it ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 19:33:21 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 151 Message-ID: <87sfe1$qnj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.131.213.70 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 09 19:33:21 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 194.131.213.70 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!grolier!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33169 In article , Panayiotis wrote: > On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:53:03 GMT, pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil > Harrison) wrote: > > > Raul Garcia wrote > > > > >>Don?t you belive in GOD? > > > >I personally don't (lack of evidence). > > What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to > be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? In the > same manner, people of the middle ages should not believe that the > Earth is not the center of the Universe, because they would have no > evidence about it. Would it be right? No. In the Middle Ages, all the available evidence pointed to Earth as the center of the universe. Would it have been right to believe that it was the center of the universe? Yes, I think so. It was the best model available at the time. Were they factually correct? No. The Earth was never the center of the universe. And the same is true now; most of what we believe on the evidence is bound to have some serious problems, maybes and only-ifs. We're prone to errors of reason, and even if they weren't, our observations would still be subject to error. But supposing two guys came to you in the year 970, with two alternative hypotheses. One theory is that the earth and the planets are in orbit around the sun. The other theory is that the earth, the sun and all the other planets are in orbit around the moon. Even if you suspect that the geocentric theory is incorrect, how are you to tell which, if any, of the alternative hypotheses is correct? I think you'd be hard put to distinguish between the two without casting your considerations in terms of the evidence available for the two alternative propositions. Sure, _now_ we know which is correct, but if you didn't have the evidence in 970, then you didn't. Unless you had evidence that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, when there was plenty of observational evidence that it _was_ (in particular the absence of visible parallax from the fixed stars), then the geocentric theory was a pretty good one to stick with. The other two didn't account for the absence of parallax (since the invention of the telescope we have known that there _is_ parallax from nearby stars, but they are much larger and further away than it was reasonable to believe in 970). > > This is just an example. But it has happened many times throughout > history and it has proved that science is constantly growing. Yes, and it will never be complete. Scientific methods can only tell us an infinitessimal part of all that is theoretically knowable. > > From one perspective, the ideology of the skeptics can be valuable. > They work like firewalls. When you configure a firewall, usually you > start by shutting down access to every packet from outside. Then you > define access lists to tell the firewall what packets are permitted to > pass through it. In the same manner, skeptics act like that; they > start by not letting anything pass (not believing anything) and then > they make holes by letting some packets pass (believe something only > when they have evidence about it). That's a pretty good analogy, and you can extend it to showing that only certain kinds of packets may be accepted even from trusted sources. I think Stephen Hawking is a great source on theoretical physics, but I wouldn't bother reading a book on wine-tasting attributed to Hawking, I wouldn't give an off-the-cuff remark by Hawking as much weight as I would a published work, and I wouldn't give as much weight to a popular book as to a peer-reviewed paper in theoretical physics. > > For firewalls, this is the ideal case, because it's the safest way to > block access to all non-proper packets. But the idea of this is to > create an isolated 'place' that can 'see' only that which is allowed > for it to see. Just because the rest are considered untrusty. Right. > > However, when people adopt this ideology in their lives, they are > creating an isolated point of view, where they only see what is > allowed for them to see. Not so. They pay attention to the signal-to-noise ratio and this means they tend to see more than those who don't consider the evidence. > And the only things that are allowed for them > to see are just a small portion of all that is. All we're capable of seeing is a tiny proportion. > > You can open your eyes, or you can continue building 'firewalls' > around you, and live in your own private, bullet-proof world. Maybe > because you're afraid to see what's outside? Network admins are afraid > of malicious users and hackers... what are you afraid of? Does the > unknown scare you the same way darkness scared you when you were young > kids? If I open my eyes, that's a way of gathering evidence, so it's difficult for me to see what you're talking about in the above. > > I believe that your world is only a projection of what exists. > Physical Projection. You project there all the time. Some people have > managed to enlarge their projection of this world, and called it the > Astral. Thus, they project there, occasianally, and call it Astral > Projection. Their world is larger than yours. But from your own > perspective, it seems fictional, as 2-D people would think of you. Not so. A flatlander could model the 2-D projections that 3-D creatures would make, and could spot interactions of 3-D creatures with his 2-D environment. Now if evidence that someone is able to "project" in the astral sense arrives, then that's fine, otherwise it's hard to see how I am to choose between your description above and any other alternative hypothesis that also fits the poor quality of the evidence. > > Just like an ostrich, skeptics put their heads in a hole in a ground. > Because they can't see what's frightening them, they feel safe. > > Now, THAT is an illusion. And please provide evidence that it's not. The problem with the unknown is that it _is_ the unknown. Skeptics can make up, and appreciate as much as anyone else, stories about the unknown, but these are distinct from experiences. If people have experienced something that others cannot (like a flatlander journeying out of flatland into the 3D world), for them it is good evidence, but for everyone else it is not, particularly if their stories are incoherent. If someone returns from their journey with information about flatland, however ("I could see into the building and Phil had a soup can on his monitor") that's good evidence that is useful to all flatlanders. Thus Flatland science advances. > > Panayiotis > > P.S.: Please note, that even though skeptics feel the duty to inform > usad persuade believers of the illusion in which they believe, I will > not to persuade you of the illusion which you believe. Except you just did. But that's okay, I don't mind discussing things on this newsgroup; that's what it's for. [...] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 22:08:08 GMT Message-ID: References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: ramtop.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: ramtop.demon.co.uk:194.222.228.63 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 950134088 nnrp-02:20779 NO-IDENT ramtop.demon.co.uk:194.222.228.63 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 94 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!diablo.theplanet.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!ramtop.demon.co.uk!pharrison Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33143 Panayiotis wrote >On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:53:03 GMT, pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil >Harrison) wrote: > >> Raul Garcia wrote > > > >>>Don?t you belive in GOD? >> >>I personally don't (lack of evidence). > >What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to >be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? In the >same manner, people of the middle ages should not believe that the >Earth is not the center of the Universe, because they would have no >evidence about it. Would it be right? No. > "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and our political system; since both are at present faultless, this must weigh against it" - Bertrand Russell >This is just an example. But it has happened many times throughout >history and it has proved that science is constantly growing. > Actually your example was particularly bad. People in the Middle Ages did believe the Earth was the centre of the Universe, despite lack of evidence. Furthermore, the church persecuted the people who *did* discover evidence that contradicted this belief. >From one perspective, the ideology of the skeptics can be valuable. >They work like firewalls. When you configure a firewall, usually you >start by shutting down access to every packet from outside. Then you >define access lists to tell the firewall what packets are permitted to >pass through it. In the same manner, skeptics act like that; they >start by not letting anything pass (not believing anything) and then >they make holes by letting some packets pass (believe something only >when they have evidence about it). > >For firewalls, this is the ideal case, because it's the safest way to >block access to all non-proper packets. But the idea of this is to >create an isolated 'place' that can 'see' only that which is allowed >for it to see. Just because the rest are considered untrusty. > >However, when people adopt this ideology in their lives, they are >creating an isolated point of view, where they only see what is >allowed for them to see. And the only things that are allowed for them >to see are just a small portion of all that is. > A slightly better analogy, but I don't think it is perfect. The problem is, there are so many religious beliefs around. At best, only one of them can be right, and since none of them are backed by evidence, there is a good chance that they are all wrong. So whichever one you choose, the odds are against you. If you were to compare this to your analogy, it would be in a network where the majority of data packets carried no useful information. In order to use your bandwidth effectively, you concentrate your resources on the sources that have proven to be more reliable. >You can open your eyes, or you can continue building 'firewalls' >around you, and live in your own private, bullet-proof world. Maybe >because you're afraid to see what's outside? Network admins are afraid >of malicious users and hackers... what are you afraid of? Does the >unknown scare you the same way darkness scared you when you were young >kids? > No, the unknown doesn't scare me. I just prefer to live by my own moral values rather than a set of moral values dictated by someone else in exchange for an unsubstantiated promise of life after death. >I believe that your world is only a projection of what exists. >Physical Projection. You project there all the time. Some people have >managed to enlarge their projection of this world, and called it the >Astral. Thus, they project there, occasianally, and call it Astral >Projection. Their world is larger than yours. But from your own >perspective, it seems fictional, as 2-D people would think of you. > OK, but it's still a matter of faith. >Just like an ostrich, skeptics put their heads in a hole in a ground. >Because they can't see what's frightening them, they feel safe. > Bad analogy again. We don't bury our heads in the sand. We just don't go running after everyone who shouts "Hey, come over here!" You have to convince us that there's something worth looking at first. > -- Phil Harrison http://www.ramtop.demon.co.uk/monitor/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: 10 Feb 2000 21:34:13 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 118 Message-ID: <6u900syeyi.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 950214855 549 10.0.3.2 (10 Feb 2000 20:34:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Feb 2000 20:34:15 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33258 pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) writes: > Panayiotis wrote > >On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:53:03 GMT, pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil > >Harrison) wrote: > > > >> Raul Garcia wrote > > > > > > > >>>Don?t you belive in GOD? No I don't. Of all the 100s of definitions of the word God (of which I know about 15) I have yet to find an meaningfull [1] one that describes anything I have either seen or regard as an good speculation [2]. [1] i.e. one that is sufficiently important to justify the hoolaboo. Simply defining "God = everything" or "God = the laws of nature" fails that test. [2] "God = a single first "being" that created everything" fails that one (and actually all variants of the "personal god" variant). > >>I personally don't (lack of evidence). > > > >What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to > >be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? In the > > > is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no grou nd > whatsoever for supposing it is true. Underline that bit: "when there is no ground". One of the central things here on a.oob is, that those that believe so do it on the base of their experiences and deductions (= groud) or lacking such by analysing common (=more likely to be right) elements in others reports of experiences. Very scientific actually. > >However, when people adopt this ideology in their lives, they are > >creating an isolated point of view, where they only see what is > >allowed for them to see. And the only things that are allowed for them > >to see are just a small portion of all that is. > > > A slightly better analogy, but I don't think it is perfect. The problem is, > there are so many religious beliefs around. At best, only one of them can be > right, and since none of them are backed by evidence, there is a good chance > that they are all wrong. So whichever one you choose, the odds are against you ###### From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: 10 Feb 2000 21:34:13 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 118 Message-ID: <6u900syeyi.fsf-2@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Feb 2000 20:34:15 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: dua131221.dialup800-stat.ethz.ch X-Trace: 10 Feb 2000 21:36:44 +0100, dua131221.dialup800-stat.ethz.ch Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33276 pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) writes: > Panayiotis wrote > >On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:53:03 GMT, pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil > >Harrison) wrote: > > > >> Raul Garcia wrote > > > > > > > >>>Don?t you belive in GOD? No I don't. Of all the 100s of definitions of the word God (of which I know about 15) I have yet to find an meaningfull [1] one that describes anything I have either seen or regard as an good speculation [2]. [1] i.e. one that is sufficiently important to justify the hoolaboo. Simply defining "God = everything" or "God = the laws of nature" fails that test. [2] "God = a single first "being" that created everything" fails that one (and actually all variants of the "personal god" variant). > >>I personally don't (lack of evidence). > > > >What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to > >be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? In the > > > is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no grou nd > whatsoever for supposing it is true. Underline that bit: "when there is no ground". One of the central things here on a.oob is, that those that believe so do it on the base of their experiences and deductions (= groud) or lacking such by analysing common (=more likely to be right) elements in others reports of experiences. Very scientific actually. > >However, when people adopt this ideology in their lives, they are > >creating an isolated point of view, where they only see what is > >allowed for them to see. And the only things that are allowed for them > >to see are just a small portion of all that is. > > > A slightly better analogy, but I don't think it is perfect. The problem is, > there are so many religious beliefs around. At best, only one of them can be > right, and since none of them are backed by evidence, there is a good chance > that they are all wrong. So whichever one you choose, the odds are against you If you take "one true religion" and believe only in it, then the odds would be so against one. A small bit of reading the discussions here (the pre skepti-invasion native ones that are now so seldom) would have shown you, that most people here tend to pick and match whatever elements of various religions they like, usually based on their own experiences and reflections. > majority of data packets carried no useful information. In order to use your > bandwidth effectively, you concentrate your resources on the sources that have > proven to be more reliable. A nice argument (one I actually today used at work against an critic of the Internet information explosion). But with this trick, like with every other one, there is the problem of "too much of the good stuff". That is in this case is shutting out too much. Any filtering measure comes at some cost (in money, time, lost opportunities). Balancing it to get an optimal ratio of protection vs loss is one of the arts of life. Simply clamping down as hard as possible seldom is anywhere near the optimal point. > >of malicious users and hackers... what are you afraid of? Does the > >unknown scare you the same way darkness scared you when you were young > >kids? > > > No, the unknown doesn't scare me. I just prefer to live by my own moral values > rather than a set of moral values dictated by someone else in exchange for an > unsubstantiated promise of life after death. Who is dictating (or following dictators) here? Most of us disdain authorities. We create our own belief systems. In that respect quite a few of us are skeptics. That is one of the reasons we do not take the claims of science for the gospel either, since science is an authority (perhaps the biggest one, these days). In that respect we are actually the more consequent skeptics. That Raul Garcia guy is an exeption in this respect, not the norm. Just look at the normal reactions to either fundamentalists or eckists or any other cultists whose spam arrives here every so often - nearly all replies are deriding them. > >I believe that your world is only a projection of what exists. > >Physical Projection. You project there all the time. Some people have > > > OK, but it's still a matter of faith. All is faith. Methods such as science, theories such as atoms or astral stuff. There exists no such thing as surety, only observation and speculation. And selecting as ones faith that which one likes the most. We may be erring. You may be erring. Take your pick. Respect our picks. Drop the missionising. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Wizzard, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic Computer: toy speeds work, you have more time to play with it ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 15:37:14 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 34 Message-ID: <883una$657$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.49.235.125 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 12 15:37:14 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 sidaway.demon.co.uk:3128 (Squid/1.NOVM.21), 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 192.168.0.3, 212.49.235.125 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33418 In article , pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote: > Panayiotis wrote [...] > > >This is just an example. But it has happened many times throughout > >history and it has proved that science is constantly growing. > > > Actually your example was particularly bad. People in the Middle Ages did > believe the Earth was the centre of the Universe, despite lack of evidence. > Furthermore, the church persecuted the people who *did* discover evidence that > contradicted this belief. Or so goes the cartoon version. As I have shown, there was good evidence for the geocentric theory--Galileo was told that the stars obviously did go around the earth, as shown by the lack of stellar parallax. He had no answer. He also proposed circular orbits for the planets, when the Jesuits had very good evidence that this could not be right. But you're right to say that they imposed a dogma because they believed that the heliocentric theory was heretical. Later that century it became possible for free-thinking non-clerical scientists like Newton to speculate that the stars were very distant "lucid bodies" like the Sun, and his theory of gravity provided a mechanism that could hold the Firmament in place without those infamous crystal spheres. Thus the heliocentric theory only came into its own through the discovery of gravity and the decline of clericalism in science. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:02:27 GMT Message-ID: References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> <6u900syeyi.fsf-2@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: ramtop.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: ramtop.demon.co.uk:194.222.228.63 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 950479347 nnrp-10:3379 NO-IDENT ramtop.demon.co.uk:194.222.228.63 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX) Lines: 147 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!ramtop.demon.co.uk!pharrison Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33528 Neil Franklin wrote >pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) writes: > >> Panayiotis wrote >> > >> >> Raul Garcia wrote >> > >> > >> > >> >>>Don?t you belive in GOD? > >No I don't. Of all the 100s of definitions of the word God (of which I >know about 15) I have yet to find an meaningfull [1] one that describes >anything I have either seen or regard as an good speculation [2]. > >[1] i.e. one that is sufficiently important to justify the >hoolaboo. Simply defining "God = everything" or "God = the laws of >nature" fails that test. > >[2] "God = a single first "being" that created everything" fails that >one (and actually all variants of the "personal god" variant). > OK, then at least we agree on something :o) > >> >>I personally don't (lack of evidence). >> > >> >What made you feel that in order to believe something there has got to >> >be evidence about it? Is your belief based only on evidence? In the >> > >> is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no grou >nd >> whatsoever for supposing it is true. > >Underline that bit: "when there is no ground". I think that this applies to the "God" question. > >One of the central things here on a.oob is, that those that believe so >do it on the base of their experiences and deductions (= groud) or >lacking such by analysing common (=more likely to be right) elements >in others reports of experiences. Very scientific actually. > Again, to discuss this in more detail, we would have to be more specific about what you define an OOBE to be, and what claims you are making. It is clear that there are vastly different views on this. I am not doubting that people are having experiences that are different from the more ordinary kinds of dreams. I am also not disputing the claim that they seem more real than ordinary dreams. I do have doubts that the consciousness leaves the physical body during these experiences. > >> >However, when people adopt this ideology in their lives, they are >> >creating an isolated point of view, where they only see what is >> >allowed for them to see. And the only things that are allowed for them >> >to see are just a small portion of all that is. >> > >> A slightly better analogy, but I don't think it is perfect. The problem is, >> there are so many religious beliefs around. At best, only one of them can be >> right, and since none of them are backed by evidence, there is a good chance >> that they are all wrong. So whichever one you choose, the odds are against you > > >If you take "one true religion" and believe only in it, then the >odds would be so against one. > >A small bit of reading the discussions here (the pre skepti-invasion >native ones that are now so seldom) would have shown you, that most >people here tend to pick and match whatever elements of various >religions they like, usually based on their own experiences and >reflections. > I think that sums up New Age (rhymes with...) attitudes to religion in general. Unfortunately, as you state yourself, people chose the parts that they think sound nice. They still don't have any more likelyhood of choosing something that might actually be correct. They could be choosing all of the wrong parts of the different religions. > >> majority of data packets carried no useful information. In order to use your >> bandwidth effectively, you concentrate your resources on the sources that have >> proven to be more reliable. > >A nice argument (one I actually today used at work against an critic >of the Internet information explosion). > >But with this trick, like with every other one, there is the problem >of "too much of the good stuff". That is in this case is shutting out >too much. > >Any filtering measure comes at some cost (in money, time, lost >opportunities). Balancing it to get an optimal ratio of protection vs >loss is one of the arts of life. Simply clamping down as hard as >possible seldom is anywhere near the optimal point. > This is a good point, but at the same time you can't just let everything in because there is too much of it. So what you do is state the standard that the information has to meet in order for it to be accepted. > >> >of malicious users and hackers... what are you afraid of? Does the >> >unknown scare you the same way darkness scared you when you were young >> >kids? >> > >> No, the unknown doesn't scare me. I just prefer to live by my own moral values >> rather than a set of moral values dictated by someone else in exchange for an >> unsubstantiated promise of life after death. > >Who is dictating (or following dictators) here? Most of us disdain >authorities. We create our own belief systems. In that respect quite >a few of us are skeptics. > >That is one of the reasons we do not take the claims of science for >the gospel either, since science is an authority (perhaps the biggest >one, these days). In that respect we are actually the more consequent >skeptics. There is a difference though. Science is not a person or an organisation. It is a method of investigation, and one that has already been shown to be very effective. > >That Raul Garcia guy is an exeption in this respect, not the norm. >Just look at the normal reactions to either fundamentalists or eckists >or any other cultists whose spam arrives here every so often - nearly >all replies are deriding them. > > >> >I believe that your world is only a projection of what exists. >> >Physical Projection. You project there all the time. Some people have >> > >> OK, but it's still a matter of faith. > >All is faith. Methods such as science, theories such as atoms or astral >stuff. There exists no such thing as surety, only observation and >speculation. And selecting as ones faith that which one likes the most. > Not quite. There is also the matter of evidence. Some ideas have much better evidence to support them than others. >We may be erring. You may be erring. >Take your pick. Respect our picks. Drop the missionising. > I'm just here for the discussions. I don't consider myself to be on any kind of mission. -- Phil Harrison http://www.ramtop.demon.co.uk/monitor/ ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: The ostrich and the firewall (Was: TO SKEPTICS!) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:54:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 20 Message-ID: <889mhn$um$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38A02DFB.EB7018C9@tirea.es> <6u900syeyi.fsf-2@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.131.213.70 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 14 19:54:31 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 194.131.213.70 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!news.idt.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:33541 In article , pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison) wrote: > Neil Franklin wrote [...] > > most > >people here tend to pick and match whatever elements of various > >religions they like, usually based on their own experiences and > >reflections. [...] > Unfortunately, as you state yourself, people chose the parts that > they think sound nice. They still don't have any more likelyhood of > choosing something that might actually be correct. They could be > choosing all of the wrong parts of the different religions. I believe it would be true to say that the word "wrong" is anathema to the New Age. I'm sure there's a more huggy, touchy-feely word. ;) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.