I just came to the realization that you're actually a Vegeta parody, a la TFS's Dragon Ball Z Abridged, fragile ego and all. At this point I keep reading your posts in Veggy's voice... Makes it a thousand time more fun that way.
You can shrug off whatever you want, no one should expect anyone else to agree or disagree with them. For all anyone knows every record ever was falsified and rewritten countless times. Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves anything. You can't disprove that the world is a simulation just because there's no proof that it is a simulation.
Regarding Holocaust deniers, if people have a set of values/beliefs, and a belief/position/opinion/claim contradicts them, it makes sense for them to deny the validity of the claim. In this case it might go like this:
- Denier's belief: The Jews control the world.
- Contradicting claim: The Holocaust happened and millions of Jews were massacred.
- Denier's beliefs are contradicted because supposedly the Jews rule the world, therefore would not let their people be massacred. Therefore, according to the denier, the Holocaust never happened. They can believe that all evidence for the Holocaust was falsified by Jews.
Also you are not required to retort with equally as precise and detailed data, as long as your data beats all of the other data/is stronger.
It's more "no fact is 100% because nothing is 100%". All senses can be deceived, and all experiences can be fabricated and tampered with. Even our own memory isn't accurate, as research has proven. That's a reason that a witness account is not infallible, and that different people have different memories of the same event. It's also the reason for the Mandela effect.
Which is EXACTLY why Judaism is so strong on pointing out that ALL of the Jews present at Sinai had the SAME experience (because no OTHER, CONTRADICTORY *Jewish* traditions exist in the first place). And I can only say that the fallacy of "they got convinced over time" breaks apart by simply looking at how OTHER religions deal with THEIR traditions. Like, ya know, the MULTITUDE of sects in Christianity and Islam - which are YOUNGER (and thus should have BETTER MEMORY). Yet they can't agree on almost NO particularity, whereas the only variations Judaism faces is the degree of accepting the ONE and ONLY tradition (and that does go from 100% to almost 0%). But no OTHER ("alternative") tradition exists, just a REJECTION of the one that others accept.
First of all, just because most or all of a group had the same experience or remembered the same experience, does not mean their recount is 100%. Millions of people remember that Nelson Mandela died in prison, but that's incorrect. Millions of people remember an alternate spelling of Bernstein bears with an 'a', but that too never happened. Even then, a minority can tamper with the memory of the majority. An example is in a study there are two groups. Both are showed the same video, but the questions asked afterwards are different. One group is asked, 'how fast were the cars driving before they crashed?' and the other was asked 'how fast were the cars driving before they bumped into each other?'. The first group answered with significantly higher speeds than the second, even after watching the same video. This shows how easily and subconsciously memory can be manipulated. This can also explain why different sects disagree on different events and details, especially during discourse when many different questions are asked.
That (Mandela) wasn't a personal experience (none of those you refer to saw him personally in prison, obviously), but instead a rumor heard from unreliable sources in the first place. It's beyond stupid to compare the two types of experience (of which one is and one isn't, to begin with).
Can you give any specific statistics (as in, an actual link) of the car video test? Also, again, watching a video is less "personal" (as in, less drawing your attention to details) than something like "God talking to you". Additionally, the latter experience is much more "personal" (and thus less susceptible to "crowd effect", since one person doesn't know what the other experienced, except for what he tells them).
I was focusing not on "why others have it so varied" (that ISN'T any wonder to me) - but rather on "why Judaism DOES NOT have it in a variety of versions". Also, this isn't as simple as it sounds from being depicted in one short sentence anyways, lol.
Didn't the story go that "God" only spoke the 10 Commandments to the Hebrew population, and the rest (including the Genesis story) was dictated to Moses in private after he climbed the mountain by himself?
How fitting - I was dealing with the mindset of Holocaust deniers before.
The ones I have spoken to have a reasonable logic.
The conclusion I came to is that the major difference between their mindset/worldview and mine is that the Holocaust deniers believe that a jewish group can rule the world together. I however believe that such a mighty group would never be able to act that uniform, there would be huge fights within such a group and it would slowly fall apart. Yes there are many powerful jews but I doubt they would work together well.
However there are no facts on that detail that could be proven.
So what I am doing is just to accept the other mindset as a theory which differs from mine and go on exploring other mindsets and worldviews. It's fascinating for me to see how every individual is interpreting the world in their own way depending on their worldview so I am eager to know more
Also keep in mind that I try to view things as objectively as possible without brandmarking things/theories as "evil" or "good" because that would only hinder me from understanding mindsets that are the opposite of mine.
Are you now saying that you see no difference in "theoretical viability" between claims: a. People are humans. and b. People are zombies. Because I assure you, SOME NUT somewhere out there DOES think that "people are zombies" - so would you be "fascinated" with such a "theory", instead of outright discarding it as INCORRECT? The way I read you, you take ANY "theory" for a MAYBE, but this is inevitably ending up STUPID, like I showed above. Or do you think otherwise? Also, this thread is very little about the Holocaust denial, and very much about another topic altogether - I just used that one as an example of a "conspiracy facing FACTS and still going strong". And I see some people (like you SEEM to be) are actually SUPPORTING the attitude I'm MOCKING here...
So here's a question... why do you talk like a bratty child all of the time? This is a serious question, you can't seem to address evolution or dinosaurs without obsessing over Pokemon. I once witnessed you compare Judaism to some Naruto anime character. You vocalize your vision of the origin of the universe by speaking about video games. It seems that your mind cannot process anything without first running it through a filter of childish media like anime and video games. And on top of that, when you frequently break down into one of your typical temper tantrums, your level of vulgarity too often is the kind of parlance common with small children such as "poop" and "fart".
By all accounts, you present yourself as either an adult with a servere developmental disability, or as someone who wishes to give off the image of one to tarnish the reputations of Jewish people by making them appear irrational, immature, and emotional unstable... So why do you do it?
If a thing, which many people believe at a certain point in time (like the conviction Earth was flat, until Magelhaes sailed round it and ended up arriving at the same place he left, or that Earth was the center of the Universe, and not the sun, until Galilei showed it was the other way round, by looking through his telescope) if a thing like that gets scientifically proven to be incorrect, then anyybody who still insists on believing the incorrect thing will be regarded as silly, stubborn and misguided.
Somebody who clings to denying at all cost, that something exists (like an afterlife, or a deity), without any means of proof, is doing nothing but the same thing.
Both of those attitudes are unscientific. You can't be scientific while acknowledging something that's been proven incorrect, and you can't be scientific while denying something that you can't prove to be incorrect.
Or someone who clings to believing in the unscientific claim of evolution of untestable Pokesaurs, right?
Also, BOTH Geocentrism AND Heliocentrism are subjective in the first place. Einstein clearly showed how you could mathematically use ANY point in space as "the center". So, both of these DOGMAS are pointless and not better than the other one.
Well, since people have been going into space and actually can SEE with their own eyes that (in our solar system) it isn't Earth which is the center but the Sun, Heliocentrism is no longer subjective, and Geocentrism has been proven incorrect beyond any discussion; for if Earth already isn't the center of the solar system it's situated in, how could it be the center of the Universe? Besides, Geocentrism was made up by people before they had any idea there was more to the Universe than our solar system, of which they knew hardly anything and did most of their dogma making by assumption and imagination.
I agree that, since we (still) are in the same position of ignorance in regard to the rest of the Universe as people were about our own solar system in the era when they made up their Geocentrism (that is, they didn't know any better), it is obvious that we can't pretend our Sun to be the center of the entire Universe; so, Heliocentrism is no absolute truth except for our own solar system. No scientist pretends otherwise. I for myself don't think there actually IS a center in the Universe, so it's useless to look for it.
But it is just as pointless to try and deny reality that was proven ages ago, simply because you don't like it. As for evolution, that is only fought against by people who find it contrary to their creationist beliefs. For everybody else, it makes perfect sense, simply because it is logical. As long as you don't have an ulterior motive, you don't feel the need to deny evolution. Why you're calling it unscientific is beyond me, you'll have to explain that a bit.
So you will still ignore "Einsteincentrism" for YOUR DOGMA of Heliocentrism? And I did mean it for the Solar system explicitly in the first place. You aren't as smart as you FEEL yourself being, bub.
So I can now claim that T-Rex was a unicorn, because I can ATTACH a horn to its skull and CLAIM that "I found it that way", RIGHT? I mean, there's NO NEED to actually see a LIVE T-Rex to be able to decide whether it WAS a unicorn or not, RIGHT? Wow, some nice unicorn promotion you just gave the T-Dude.
And I also need "ulterior motives" in order to not take SCIENCE FICTION of the Alien Planet type for granted, RIIIGHT??? Simple skepticism of UN-TESTABILITY of certain CLAIMS is apparently HERESY for materialists like you, huh?
Because you can't test it in any DIRECT way. Like I said, I could attach a Tricer horn to a T-Rex (both being from "comparably old eras" to fool the "date analysis"), and CLAIM that I found it that way. This is how I view like 99.99% of "evolutionary science" in the most literal sense to begin with - "The Future Is Wild meets Pokemon".
This is not a tone in which one puts up a good debate. "so, you blah blah blah blay, RIGHT?" "And you blah blah blah blah, right??"
If you call Heliocentrism -exclusively speaking about our own solar system- a "dogma", you're denying dozens of proofs, what we can see with our own eyes through satellite photography included. Already, that is totally unscientific. Do you doubt your own eyes? As soon as you start that way, nobody is going to take you seriously, especially if you go on raving about some weird story on dinosaurs, allegedly proving evolution wrong, which it doesn't. there is a lot more to know about evolution than dinosaur fossils, you know. They don't prove much, so proving they're not above some fraud doesn't DISprove much either.
Like I said, *YOU* ignore Einstein's RELATIVITY, which makes ANY point in space a "mathematically valid center of that system" in the first place, stripping the Sun of its "centrism" altogether. Plus, the Sun actually ISN'T the STRICTLY MATHEMATICAL CENTER of the Solar system - it also rotates around the gas giants to a very small degree. It's just that this rotation is minor in comparison to the Sun's size itself, but it's NOT like the Sun is FIXED in space as the center of the Solar system either - like HelioCENTRISM claims. Anyways, you DODGE THAT BALL (Einstein) entirely, veering away towards Pokesaurs which are a DIFFERENT TOPIC. So, I'd say YOU are the one incapable of SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION in the first place.
That depends on the something: certain thing's inexistence are easy to proove. Like vampires or zombies: the mere fact that dead bodies don't come to life again proves they don't exist. They're myths that came to us from times when people didn't have any way of proving anything in a scientific way. Then there are quack medicines: those can be proven wrong (and their effect inexisting by consequence) easily as well. They'e mostly placebos, not real medicines.
Other things are more difficult to prove: Ghosts, witchcraft, afterlife, gods, spirits, etcetera, that kind of stuff: they're also products of our imagination, but scientifically proving they don't exist is more difficult, and so there will always be people who will go on believing it, no matter how common sense will go on saying there's no such thing...
I disagree with your point on vampires and zombies. Just because we haven't witnessed a corpse coming to life (yet) doesn't mean they can't. There are many possibilities regarding vampires and zombies, and with many interpretations of vampires and zombies they don't have to be corpses coming to life (i.e zombie 'virus' that infects the living, much like the zombie ant fungus).
The fact that we've never seen a vampire or a zombie is not why we can know for sure there's no such thing. There are tons of real, scientific ways to prove there's no such thing, other than "'we've never seen it happen". In fact, that is no proof at all: since there's no such thing, we obviously can't see it happen, can we?
And viruses and fungae aren't vampires and zombies, they're viruses and fungae.
I concede to your first point, but not your second. There have been many variations and iterations of zombies and vampires, including those that are caused by viruses.
Vampires are a more fickle matter, as there are countless variations and changes among different myths and stories. Sometimes they're allergic to light or garlic, sometimes not. They are based on real life events though, such as cases of patients with iron deficiency where in the past doctors would give them blood because they were crazy and thought it would help. (Iron deficiency causes extremely pale skin and coldness in hands and feet [could relate to how vampires are supposedly as cold as a corpse]).
The point is, reanimated corpses is not the only iteration of vampires and zombies, therefore I don't think you can completely disprove their existence according to only that.
Just as there are certain diseases that have given birth to myths about vampires, such as the iron deficiency you speak of, there are those that have given birth to myths about wherewolves (hirsutism, for one), and elf children, a belief that sometimes elves would rob a baby from their crib and put an elf baby in it's place. The child would grow up beautiful but for ever cold and distant and constantly crying and shrieking out of sorrow and longing for it's own kind: that was what people in the past thought of autistic children. In other civilisations myths were made about other disorders like epilepsy and certain malformations. But that is exactly my point: they're MYTHS. The people didn't understand the problem and filled the blanks of their knowledge with imaginary explanations. And myths, however interesting and fascinating, are not science. They don't prove anything, unless the bottomless pit of human imagination.
Oh. Sorry. I was distracted. there could be plenty of ways as to how the myth of the zombie was born: to know, we first have to follow it's way to where it came from. The belief of zombies is part of the voodoo culture, which was brought from Africa by the black people who were abducted by the slave traders and shipped to the Americas. It was part of African spiritist belief, although right now it has almost completely dissappeared in Africa itself. In the Caribbean aerea and Central America it is still very much alive, mixed with indigenate beliefs of the native Americans, and Catholic Christianism. Death has always played a big part in voodoo culture, because in the spiritist African faith, the deceased ancestors were revered and had divine powers that they could bestow on their descendants on Earth. It's like that in Asian religions like the original Chinese faith as well. Being linked by a religious relationship with people who have passed away has always been accompanied with a fear of their power, if it either turns itself against the living, or comes back to haunt them. Either like ghosts, or as "reanimated" corpses, revived by some magic power. That's the origin of the myth. Of course, just as your comparision of vampires with normal people sick with anemia or some other disease, can also apply to "confirmations" of the existence of zombies: just as people who believe in elves will make the link between a child, that never makes eye contact and starts crying for no obvious reason, while at the same time it does not look mentally impaired like many other cases such as Down syndrome or Virchow-Seckel dwarfism, or Pfeiffer syndrome or any other type of congenital disorder. A child that has autism looks just as cute as a normal kid, often they look really beautiful; but their problems make them impossible to raise unless you know exactly how to take care of them, which requires a thorough knowledge of the problem that only now is being completely observed and studied. Long ago, such problems were totally ununderstandable and the link with some myth the people believed in was easily made. The same thing happened with people, who believe that once deceased people can come back from the grave in order to take revenge on their descendants, when they were facing phenomena that were quite impossible to understand for them, like coma looking very much like death, in such a way that sometimes coma patients were believed dead and buried but woke up and tried to come out their coffin - sometimes successfully. Without all the monitoring equipment that doctors have today, all our ancestors had was their senses: when a body didn't seem to breathe anymore, or his heart didn't beat, that was it, really. He's dead! And sometimes a person comes back from there on his own....
The misunderstood incidents always affirmed the belief in the already existing myths. In a very Christian community, a thing like this would be considered a miracle. In a community of voodoo-believers, it would be explained as a spirit invading a corpse to come and terrorize the living. And when something like that actually happens, people would go: you see? It's true. We've seen it with our own eyes.
As for reviving viruses, that's an other matter altogether: viruses aren't animals, they're something else. Death and life isn't the same for them as it is for animals such as people or even bacteria. They can be "dormant" for millenia, and become "alive" again when the conditions are good for them in some way. Virologists can explain the situation more extensibly than I can, but the difference between viruses and any other living thing in this world is so great you can't just speak of "death" and "life" in their respect, at least not the same way as we would for other living creatures. Fungae and several other plants can look totally dead to the human eye, but they wouldn't necessarily BE dead. We just can't see the difference. Ever heard of the "Rose of Jericho"? It can be baught in plant shops sometimes. It looks like a ball of dry grass. Totally dead, you'd say looking at it. Were you to take it apart, all you'd find is completely dehydrated, bone dry plant remains. But if you put it in a bowl and poor water over it, after a few hours it starts to unfold, and in a little while you see it become a large, green, living plant! It is totally miraculous to see, because it looks sooooo dead first. And in fact, it actually IS dead, at least, it is in a stasis kin to death. It's originary to the deserts where it rains once in twenty years or so, for a few days; in such circumsances a plant has to go without water for sooooo long it needs special capacities in order to survive. Certain fungae and mushrooms can do that too. Even some insects. But this is no real death, it's a natural process due to evolution. It is in no way useful as 'proof' that any mammal could do the same thing, so even if viruses can become "alive" after having been "dead" for a long time, that can't be considered proof that vampires as they're depicted in horror movies could really exist...
Me two. That post above is exactly the type of reasoning of others, which led me to making this thread in the first place. It shows how easily people discard UNVERIFIED (and therefore NON-DISPROVED) claims as simply FALSE - just because THEY "feel like it". I, on the other hand, demand valid scientific attitude from those who FLAUNT "scientific attitude" as "their logic" in the first place. Yet in the end, the majority of them NEVER REALLY relies on "scientific" knowledge or testing techniques in the first place - going instead will a lot of "emotional decisioning" simply veiled AS IF it's "scientific". Hence this thread.
I was trained in logic and math, and learned that sort of "proof". Actually that's the only sort which I want to call a proof. You have axioms, you have a set of operations and with those you can proof facts to be true within that set of axioms and operations.
These proofs are 100% certain, but only apply to the system, e.g. math.
Then, there are theories which have been confirmed. That is no proof anymore in my opinion, but a good thing. Someone watched, wrote down a theory about their observations. The theory allowed predictions and later these predictions were found to be correct. A very useful thing to have. Einstein's theory of relativity is an example - it allowed many and also particular weird predictions e.g. that light can go in curves under the effect of gravity, and all predictions have been confirmed so far. Still, it very likely is incomplete. Doesn't lower the merits though, it's the best we have so far.
But beyond the math in it, there are no proofs.
Then, what the person whom I responded to did - some reasoning, mixing opinions, knowlege and hearsay to something that they wanted to call a "proof". Maybe it is for them - to me it is not even close to a proof.
E.g. they said it is easy to disprove the existence of zombies because dead bodies don't come alive. How do we know that? It probably didn't happen in the vicinity of the writer. What about other places? Other times, past and future? Special circumstances? To say zombies don't exist we would need to see all places at all times and consider all and every possible set of circumstances, and only then we can be sure they don't exist. An undertaking that scientists agreed to be beyond human ability in general and therefore concluded that to disprove somethings extistence is really hard, probably impossible.
I do hope you mean exactly that which you wrote here. If you do, then we think VERY MUCH ALIKE (even if SUPERFICIALLY you might think otherwise). My biggest LOGICAL beef with atheistic materialism can be summed up with these: How do we know what really happened in the times we have no documents about? Conversely - why do they reject actually existing documents on the mere grounds of "unlikely contexts" that those lead to? And last but hardly least - why are they so strongly against combining verified data with verified documents into a "double reality" that would allow for BOTH at the same time? Explanation: Materialistic atheism is based on making UNVERIFIED (and what's worse, UNVERIFIABLE altogether) theories like Big Bang and evolution into literal Truths-from-a-big-T. But it's UNVERIFIABLE - so it's by no means a HARD-CODED TRUTH, only a VERSION at best. The exact same thing can be said about the Genesis account - it's equally UNVERIFIABLE, and hence a VERSION as well. Yet when I came up with a POSSIBLE COMBO of the two (that the process of Genesis CREATED the "impression" of Big Bang and evolution; essentially combining two UNVERIFIABLE theories into ONE) - I get all the flak in the world for "daring to DOUBT their VERSION". Even though I suggest merely BLENDING it with something else (again, equally UNVERIFIABLE), not REJECTING is as "wrong" at all. I do wish to see YOUR response to this, please.