People often laugh at the idea of spirit, God, or any kind of paranormal topics. I would like you to consider some examples from Michio Kaku, a leading theoretical physicist.
I included two examples for a reason. The first example is something that was giggled about, but later shown to be true. The second is one that is giggled about currently.
It's always the same. There are always those who think they know what can't be, even though there is no way to determine what can't be.
In fact, it only shows the power of arrogance for a person, who has been alive for, probably, less than 100 years, to claim they know enough about a universe that is 14 billion years old, to know what can't possibly exist.
So maybe the next time you hear an idea that you think is worthy of the 'giggle factor', instead you will keep an open mind to the possibilities of a universe that is at least 140 million times older than you are.
And in case you don't realize how big of a number that is, search google for '1 million digits pi', find one of the websites that have that listed, copy it, and paste it into a text editor 140 times.
Should we all giggle at the links? They do look a little odd...
Who cares what Michio Kaku has to say? He's a sensationalist who gets tv ratings to sells books. He's done nothing of any import.
Are you still trying to get people to believe your personal fantasies?
1 - No matter who says it, the principle is true. There have always been ridiculous ideas that people laugh at, which are later proven to be true. It's been that way about flat earth, earth at the center of the universe, and who knows how many other topics, in man's history.
2 - Because someone enjoys explaining advanced scientific topics and theories to the general community makes them a sensationalist? He's a man dedicated to science, and passionate enough about it to want to share it in a way that the public have easy access to ideas.
3 - Yeah, he's done nothing of any import. It's not like he co-authored the first field-form papers on string theory, or had any scientific papers published.
http://publish.aps.org/search/query?&am … page%5D=25
Oh wait... he does do research. Hmm...
You just don't like the topic because is one of your favorite responses to an idea you don't agree with.
And, what have seen there exactly? Ignorant believers laughing at people with realistic ideas backed with evidence.
No, he sensationalizes scientific topics for ratings.
And, how is any of that important or relevant to science. String theory has no evidence, it's just math at this point.
"And what have seen there exactly?" ? What are you asking? You're missing either the subject, the object, or both, in your sentence.
You don't follow the concept far enough back. For these ideas, there was always someone who proposed it first, without any evidence. Those ideas were always laughed at. People laugh at what they think is ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with its validity.
Fine, that's your opinion of him. Personally, I know a lot of people who take more interest in science due to guys like him that try and simplify things and present them to the public. You don't like him, others do. Maybe science just isn't exciting to you, so you think anyone excited about it is a sensationalist.
Even if he were, you are such a fan of logic, you know that attacking the person rather than the idea is a fallacy, right?
Ok, so by your opinion, theories without evidence are worthless?
Most of our advancements started as theories with no evidence. Actually, that's not quite true. The starting evidence for any theory is the result of an experiment. That evidence doesn't prove the theory, but it opens up the possibility for it.
If all scientists thought as you do, nobody would do any research, because they didn't have any evidence to justify their theories.
It's not like relativity started off as math... oh wait, it did.
When their claims are claims of magic that aren't grounded in reality have never been shown to be valid.
His sensationalism has nothing to do with my interest of science. He wants ratings, that's the bottom line. If you like tv personalities that are into getting ratings, that's your thing, not mine.
Even if he were, you are such a fan of logic, you know that attacking the person rather than the idea is a fallacy, right?
No, theories based on magic are worthless.
Sorry, but scientists aren't stupid and can easily see through your charade of trying to pull the wool over their eyes with magical theories.
I know how you are thinking, but you aren't thinking of this objectively. You have to put yourself back before you know the outcome.
You are thinking that there were two types of claims:
1 - Claims that were laughed at, yet were based on reality. Those can be proven to be valid.
2 - Claims that were laughed at, yet were not based on reality. Those have never been proven to be valid.
Your definition of 'based on reality' depends on whether or not the claim is proven. In other words, you are defining the type of claim by the outcome that comes after. Exactly why I said you aren't taking yourself back far enough. There have been claims proven true and false that came about the same way: trying to explain the results of an experiment.
There have always been people to laugh at claims. You are one of those people.
Even worse, you laugh at beliefs. Beliefs are personal, and they don't define reality. What that means is, your beliefs about what is ridiculous don't define reality. Yet, you act like they do.
He wants ratings... sure, anyone who goes on TV wants ratings. Anyone who writes a book wants it read. Anyone who sells a product wants people to buy it.
So, every scientist who ever wrote a book is deceitful, every salesman is deceitful... you're still attacking the character of a man(who actually does research) because you don't agree with what he said.
So what makes a theory based off of magic? You say his theories are worthless, because they are based off of magic. Before that, you said his theories are just based off of math... so, math is magic?
Seriously, do you even pay attention what you are posting from one post to the next?
Haha, what wool am I pulling over scientists' eyes? Just as any good scientist, I know that all experimentation should be done without prejudice. You want evidence to justify research, even though research is what discovers the evidence we base truth off of.
And, that's what I laugh at because folks like yourself want the rest of us to believe your personal beliefs are reality.
That is yet another fallacy, look it up.
Notice how you put words in mouth all the time? Where did I say that about Kaku? Fallacies.
Your nonsense about spirits, of course.
No, we state our beliefs as beliefs and you laugh. You do so because, in your opinion, they are false, so the reality must be that they are false. YOU are the one wanting everyone else to believe that your beliefs are reality. You don't even realize how hypocritical your statement was?
If you want to talk about fallacy the burden of proof is on you. I know you don't understand them, you just like to say them to look smart.
Nope, didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you about his theories, you said they are worthless cause they are just based off math. I asked you again about his theories and you said they are worthless because they are based off magic.
If I'm wrong, then you didn't understand the subject of my arguments.
How am I pulling my 'nonsense' over scientist's eyes?
Yes, they are hysterical at times. Sometimes, I might just chortle or guffaw.
In other words, it is hypocritical of me to consider reality as reality.
And, it is hypocritical of me NOT to believe there are gods, angels, demons, ghosts, goblins and a whole assortment of invisible entities swishing around the universe in a never ending battle of good and evil, all having a direct effect on us such that we are commanded to obey and worship them as a result.
If you say so.
Yes, the burden of proof on me is to hold reality for what it is. The burden of proof on you is to show reality is something entirely different than what it is.
I thought you said it was because 'we try and shove our beliefs down your throat'?
No, it is not hypocritical for you to consider your view of reality as reality. It is not hypocritical for you to not believe in these gods, andgels and demons. It is hypocritical for you to state them(your beliefs) as reality, at the same time as criticizing Theists for doing the same thing.
No, the burden of proof to back up your claim is on you. If you say something is real, you have to show why. If you say something isn't real, you have to show why.
I state my beliefs as ideas, not reality, so there is no burden of proof(because I"m not trying to prove anything!).
LOL! Are you saying just because believers are one dimensional, they are unable to carry out more than one act at a time.
Yeah, that's what I said. Hilarious.
LOL! I have to show you why something is real?
And, if I say that the invisible purple rhinoceros is not real, I have to show that, too?
In other words, I have to always show why peoples delusions are delusions?
So, to state your beliefs, which are unfounded, irrational and ridiculous, we are to assume they are "ideas"?
No, you just can't explain why you are on these forums. To combat hate speech, yet you don't want people to shove their beliefs down your throat and force them on you. You use that argument even when I say 'this is what I believe but I'm not saying it's right'. You still think that's me forcing you to believe what I believe.
You did. Want proof?
You state personal fantasies as a fact. Therefore, you are extrapolating your thoughts into fact. Mind projection fallacy. Want more examples?
You state that my beliefs are nonsense, as a fact. You didn't say 'I don't agree' or 'I don't believe that'. You stated that my beliefs are nonsense as a fact. Again, projecting your opinion as reality.
If you make any claim, you have to back it up with proof. It's simple logic. You tout logic all the time but ignore its rules.
You can say you don't believe in invisible purple rhinoceros, and that's fine. But to say they aren't real, yes, you have to back up your claim.
After all, we have discovered over and over things which used to be invisible.
Again, you say they are unfounded, irrational, and ridiculous, as if that is a fact, based off of your own opinion, with no proof. You shift the burden of proof and mind-project your opinion into reality. Two logical fallacies in one.
For me to state a belief as an idea is exactly what a belief is. Belief vs. fact... do some research.
in lamens terms: its easy to laugh at something thats unproven until it is revealed as proven!
by Yves4 years ago
Atheists, do you despise Jesus or just religions (in general) that worship God?Such God worshiping religions would include Judaism and Islam. Also, did something happen to you to make you angry about "God" or...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
I am very thankful to our friend ediggity to write the following post in a thread elsewhere here. The point he has mentioned needs to be discussed in detail, so I start the thread.ediggity wrote:“Yes, my...
by AKA Winston3 years ago
Every advance of science has been at a loss to superstition. Once humankind learned of the plague bacillus, the fear disappeared of the local witch bringing "the black death" by casting her evil eye on...
by wordscribe418 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists...
by Jacqui5 years ago
Is it possible to believe in both Creation and Microevolution?A comment on another question sparked this. Those who believe in Creation often scoff at the idea of Evolution eg we can't be descended from Apes...
by christiananrkist4 years ago
its said that the person who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. I believe this to be true, however doesnt the person objecting to the claim also share some burden? afterall, can a profitable and fruitful...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.