Believing in things that are not real

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Dr Kerry Spackman once wrote that false beliefs should never be respected nor celebrated, false beliefs should always be ridiculed and mocked.

He is only a "doctor" based on a belief that he has attained a certain level of knowledge and practical experience and the title of doctor is bestowed by their peers.

Doctors have been known to push an agenda depending on their funding.

Why would someone use ridicule in changing peoples minds?

Why would someone use ridicule in changing peoples minds?

perhaps an anti-psychotic would work better

originally posted by: rom12345
The belief in things that are demonstrably not real is delusional. Having an open mind to what is not known is a different thing.

Who determines what is real and what is not real. Science is a tool, it is misused and evidence is tainted. Look at all the changes going on in the world of science lately once they developed ways to properly test things. People were led to believe some things were true because there was scientific evidence that showed it was real, but that evidence was not gathered properly or is not pertinent to what it is being applied to sometimes. If you get into the highest levels of science, they are a little better, but most times profit and desire for funding sources steers scientific testing.

a reply to: rickymouse
Perhaps, but science is the most objective measure of reality we have. What would you recommend be the measure ?

a reply to: Phage

The box is consensus of the time. The beliefs of societies, special interest groups that fund research, and the beliefs of scientists who are structuring the research. Consensus is always evolving, and not always for the better. Consensus of the time includes governing bodies and the public's beliefs.

The box is pretty complex and there are many types of boxes, some larger than others, some even wrapped all up in pretty packages.

Here is an interesting take on all this.
The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis

originally posted by: rom12345
a reply to: rickymouse
Perhaps, but science is the most objective measure of reality we have. What would you recommend be the measure ?

Not all scientific research is objective, it is very important that people know that. Money steers scientific research quite often. If a lab does not produce evidence of some kind to make their client profits, they will not get more money from the source, and that guides the perameters of the research.

Remember, DDT was perfectly safe years ago, till it was banned for being dangerous to our health. I see more deceit in creation of evidence than I see good in it, often the good research is also discredited because it does not fit in with consensus of the time within the regulating body governing it.

a reply to: rickymouse
Granted, the research may be imperfect, but the scientific method is possibly the greatest achievement of our species.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Dr Kerry Spackman once wrote that false beliefs should never be respected nor celebrated, false beliefs should always be ridiculed and mocked.

He is only a "doctor" based on a belief that he has attained a certain level of knowledge and practical experience and the title of doctor is bestowed by their peers.

Doctors have been known to push an agenda depending on their funding.

Why would someone use ridicule in changing peoples minds?

Why would anyone encourage others to ridicule people for their own belief/opinion?

Speaking from experience, I know it is either based on their own fears, and insecurities.... or an agenda, of various sorts ... Perhaps both, at the same time.

It is always a belief that most people accept as true, an 'official' account, of course. They can attack a person for what most don't agree with, and 'gang up' on him, with endless mockery, and insults.

This is a classic 'bully' behavior. Internal fears and insecurities are expressed outwardly as anger, spite, and insults.

To be fair, we have been conditioned to mock and ridicule people for believing what others don't. I was about 7 years old when my teacher mocked people for believing the Earth was flat, with a drawing of a ship sailing over the edge, surrounded by sea monsters.

I have never forgotten that image, even though it meant nothing to me, and I didn't care what shape the Earth was. I was told we always believed the Earth was flat for hundreds of years because we were ignorant about science, we hadn't explored the world yet, or so on.

So whenever people mentioned the idea of a flat Earth, I thought back to a ship sailing over the edge, surrounded by sea monsters. And I remembered how my science teacher snickered and laughed, at how unbelievably 'ignorant' we were, way back then.


Think of one specific belief, which is taken as 100% fact, which is taught to a 7 year old kid, like me - Earth is shaped like a ball. We live on a huge, enormous ball. W who proudly thought he's already smarter than all those 12th century morons, who actually thought the Earth was flat!!

Why do people always laugh about this one, particular belief? It is imprinted behavior. All of the people were simpletons, morons, who knew nothing of the world. They believed in an ancient myth, written in the Bible, about the Earth being flat!! Anyone who now believes the Earth is flat must be a religious fanatic, or a conspiracy nut!


While nobody laughs about someone who believes aliens visited Earth, abducted humans, cross-bred with humans, created half alien, half human hybrids. At least, nobody seems to think it is absolute BS, anymore.

Doubt the shape of Earth, as round? How dare you?


Cheers.

Are you asking to be taken seriously in the belief that the earth is flat ?
I will rather have the humility to stand on the shoulders of giants.

Unfortunatly false notions (errors) have had grave consequences for those who entertain them.

a reply to: rom12345

Your video does not play so I have reposted it for you.

originally posted by: rom12345
Are you asking to be taken seriously in the belief that the earth is flat ?
I will rather have the humility to stand on the shoulders of giants.

Unfortunatly false notions (errors) have had grave consequences for those who entertain them.

Of course, I do not expect you to take it seriously.

Most people would never take it seriously.

I didn't take it seriously, either.

I learned that Earth was round, back in Grade 4, or 5.

I knew that if the Earth was flat, as once believed, it meant ships would have sailed right off the edge of Earth!

That is ridiculous, right?


Decades later, a co-worker asked if I believed the Earth was flat. I said no, I don't believe it is flat.

He just asked for a favor - study the issue, thoroughly, and tell him what I thought about it.

He left the job before I had a chance to tell him what I thought.



So now, I'd like to suggest anyone here to research the subject, thoroughly, on both sides, before you say it's not worth taking seriously.


Perhaps then, you'll find the same thing I did. Only way to know for sure is to study it.


I asked a pilot who said the Earth was round to explain this -

A plane is at cruising altitude, say 35,000 feet. The plane flies at that same altitude for 6 hours, and starts to descend, and lands.

The plane's instruments measure it as a level flight, during the 6 hours at cruising altitude. All planes measure level flight by atmospheric pressure readings during a flight. The VSI, or Vertical Speed Indicator, measures descent, or ascent, in Feet Per Minute. A level flight measures as 0 fpm. Neither in descent, nor in ascent, in other words.

The pilot pointed out that the atmosphere was made up of many distinct layers, stacked up, one by one. They are called 'pressure gradients'.

He claimed these pressure layers followed the curvature of Earth's surface. These layers guided the plane along Earth's curvature.

This, he said, explains why planes fly over the curvature of Earth, at altitude, without any instruments measuring a descent.

So I asked the pilot how this was possible. A pressure gradient covers hundreds of miles each. A plane would fly within a pressure gradient for hours before passing through it to another layer, which 'curves' down.

And the pilot didn't answer it. He left. Never to return. Never to answer my question.


A 6 hour flight would fly over 1800 feet, or so, of Earth's curvature. Nobody has yet been able to account for 1800 feet of missing curvature.

That's why I take it seriously.

I was un aware that curvature was measured in feet.

Wouldn't using a spherical coordinate system resolve the 'missing feet problem' in doing these kinds of calculations.

I believe, 'Belief' is not needed for things that are proven true. (according to the scientific method), you can expressly know things according to what can be considered by the culture the meanings of words like: 'believe' , 'real', 'know', 'true', 'false'.

Hypothesis is a belief that needs to be rigorously proven to become canonical fact.
Theories are disproved all the time. If we however, find that 'proven facts' are being overturned frequently, (by the scientific method), we could start to entertain magical thinking.

"things that are not real" denotes that the existence of said things is false.
""Believing in things that are not real" is synonymous with either ignorance or mental defect.
If false belief is accompanied by beliefs of certainty, it can often become dangerous.

a reply to: turbonium1

Actually, the Jewish bible contains info of the earth being a sphere. It was some Queen of Spain that pushed the flat earth agenda back about a thousand years ago. Most cultures were forced to adopt the flat earth lie. Even at that time some of the Spanish sailors, way before Columbus, were making maps that included some evidence of the Americas. The Queen of Spain's own navy knew what she said was not real. That flat earth lie spread all over Europe, but people could see what was happening in the sky and did not believe what she was saying, but parrotted what they were supposed to say when asked.

The elite in many of the countries back then were not very smart, but they forced what they believed to be true on the population they controlled. What would be the benefit of people believing the earth was flat, it would protect the income of the elite who had ships gathering resources from the Americas.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

YOUR REAL SELF
In mysticism that alone is real which never changes.

While anything subject to change is unreal.

By such definition the body and mind are unreal, as both are subject to change.

If you relax with no body sensations, awareness (consciousness) of awareness alone remains.

If you empty your mind even for one second, awareness (consciousness) alone remains.

As the screen is seen when the movie stops

Awareness is realized when your mind is still.

Only awareness can be aware of awareness (in silence).

Only consciousness can be conscious of consciousness (in silence).

Before this body, you were aware (as consciousness).

While in this body, you are aware (as consciousness).

After this body, you will remain aware (as consciousness).

Your real Self is always consciousness.


by Pardeep

a reply to: rom12345

You would have to believe something is true before it is adopted as true. I have seen so many people who think something is real when in fact it is a scam and society has followed along and created a reality out of something that is not real. Gold really does not have any value, there was a campaign to increase it's value, gold was chosen as a form of money because it was too soft to be used in tools. The value of that metal is not real. Diamonds have great value, yet they are just rocks, the clear ones are actually kind of plain. Some people created a market for diamonds, their value is not real but people are obsessed with them.

Belief forms this reality, people's belief in science is what gives it power even though what the science is applied to is irrelevant half the time. We live in a reality formed by the beliefs of the people in it.

traditional science defines 'real' as existing.
mystic traditions define 'real' as the observation of what the scientist deem to be the meaning of the word.
modern science asserts that measurement determines if something is 'real'. before which it has only a probability of being 'real'

are we not crowding the world 'Real' ?

I do agree, that the adoption of reality, is as important as the 'reality` it's self.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: turbonium1
Actually, the Jewish bible contains info of the earth being a sphere. It was some Queen of Spain that pushed the flat earth agenda back about a thousand years ago.

The Sefirot are the bases of Jewish mysticism, which are 10 spherical emanations of Ein SOF (which is the conceptual possibility of the expression)

originally posted by: rom12345
a reply to: rickymouse
Granted, the research may be imperfect, but the scientific method is possibly the greatest achievement of our species.

At least now we have the technology to test things properly. Many of the creations of science in the past were created in the minds of people who could think well and were predominant. That is why there is so much change occurring in scientific knowledge and there is bucking going against this new research by people that believe their knowledge was correct and that new research is misguided. Belief of thingsby those up at the top can cause evidence not to be accepted and even attacked by people who pride themselves of the knowledge they hold. Teachers taught things for decades and find out what they taught was wrong. Notice that textbooks are retired after say five years and are usually destroyed? That way it reduces the ability of an older person to find evidence to challenge the new consensus of the time.

I still have some old school books and some of the stuff was disproved and some of the disproved stuff is now back in the limelight as actually more pertinent than the new research that got it kicked out.

I try to look at all research as interesting then do the research to compare what used to be considered real and how this effects the whole picture. Often flawed interpretations of evidence created thirty years ago and reinforced by other narrow minded research has caused a spiderweb of wrong principles effecting massive amounts of people to make people ill. This creation of a research web created off of wrong science plagues the sciences, I sometimes read research saying that their new research will cause a lot of turmoil because it nullifies principles that were created half a century ago, principles that are incorporated all over in a field of science. But it will take time and money to change this wrong direction and scientists do not want to say they were so wrong so the research to interpret the newly discovered wrong path is just abandoned so it does not degrade the flow of funding coming into the scientific community.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: rickymouse

Hi RM.

Are you suggesting that there are some beliefs that are real?
Which one(s)?

If something is deemed real: does it still require a belief?

What is a 'real thing', and how do you know it is so?

I believe I need more coffee. I know from experience if I do not have it I get a headache eventually and I lack energy and ability to think correctly. I did try quitting but found that after a week, my ability to reason went way down, I was happy and dumb and was fooled into believing others because I was not able to identify things that were wrong as well.

That is from my own experience, others may not actually have those problems, but to me that information is real because it applies to me. Without the caffeinated coffee I am more of a sucker.

That does appear to be a belief, propped-up by a series of other beliefs.
Is there any truth to be found in your statements?
Did not see any truths in there.
Are they not merely opinions, beliefs?

Has anyone, yet in this thread, provided an example of a true/real belief?