A serious question to those who really understand science.


Koshej's avatar
If something/someone provides you with a very detailed and very precise depiction of a whole series of events - do you actually need to counter it with an equally precise and detailed set of data?
Or maybe you can just shrug it off based on very obscure and very indirect, let alone detailed or precise, set of assumptions that you simply wish was true?
Additionally, is the lack of evidence REALLY a proof of non-existence of something?
Inb4 another attack on religion:
Now, think of the Holocaust deniers - is such behavior scientific in the first place?
Yes or no?
WHY DO *YOU* THINK SO?

(Note: This thread is NOT about the Holocaust. I merely used it as a very fitting EXAMPLE of how certain people "think".)
Comments296
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
AdamKass's avatar
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.
Koshej's avatar
Like I care.
AdamKass's avatar
Point and case....
Frogcarefree's avatar
my decorations answer the question
wishmak3r's avatar
Everything has an explanation

I all simply just is controlled in existance

To say human word's may not know of many things of existance

We only make up new words often to recompensate

One name stands above all

Jesus Christ
I am that I am
Holy
Truth
Good
Love
Peace
Etc.
These word's to the deepest of human insight can go have always been known.

Existance speaks in many ways
The real question is
Are you listening?
Koshej's avatar
Fanfiction, lol.
Koshej's avatar
Literally, if anything.
Check what the word "canon" means, lol.
MrShmoodlePuffs's avatar
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.
Koshej's avatar
A good explanation of "screw facts, I have theory", indeed. :p
MrShmoodlePuffs's avatar
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.
Koshej's avatar
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.
MrShmoodlePuffs's avatar
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.
Koshej's avatar
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?
View all replies
Saeter's avatar
Sounds oddly familiar.
Luminaara's avatar
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.
Koshej's avatar
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...
Luminaara's avatar
I am not supporting anything I just aim to understand the logic behind it.
If the person who thinks we would all be zombies gives me a good logical story, why not it would be fascinating too.

But seriously I'd love to meet a person who could defend this position with good logical arguments :D 

I am not in search for an ideology or conspiracy theory I want to believe in, all I want is to understand how on earth somebody can believe this and that.
Koshej's avatar
I'm not sure we understand each other, so whatever.
Luminaara's avatar
probably lol

Always open for questions though :)
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?
CrazyLlama95's avatar
''I once witnessed you compare Judaism to some Naruto anime character.''
He must have been talking about jewjitsu.
Jewjitsu by CrazyLlama95