Raising Standards

What's wrong with saying people will believe something if there is sufficient evidence? It seems to be logical, wouldn't you agree. I beleive it is a waste of time because there is not evidence for heaven.Do you want to discuss this in chat?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

How about open a page in Facebook and we can write on each other's wall?I started reading a book called THE RADICAL LEAP by Steve Farber. It was written by an employee of The Tom Peters Company, which he pigeonholes as one of America's top leadership development firms.They conceive of such things as:"Leadership is the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations." from THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE by Kouzes and Posner.What is leadership?Organizing people around a common goal.
Standing up for what you believe in.
Sticking your neck out when it's the right thing to do.
If I knew, I'd have a job.Above are all anonymous from the book.and finally,"Love. Energy. Audacity. Proof." (LEAP) by Edg, a character Steve meets in the book."Leadership is always substantive and rarely fashionable. It is intensely personal and intrinsically scary, and it requires us to live the ideas we espouse-in irrefutable ways-every day of our lives, up to and beyond the point of fear." also spoken by Edg in the book by Steve Farber, p. 19, THE RADICAL LEAPIf I have to consider that this may be a subject under intense study (Don't tell me leadership isn't of interest to you.), and that there is a requirement to live the idea irrefutably, I want to tell you there is fear, major fear.See, if a girasas is making its way into manifestation in me, there might not ever be a "going back" for me. I have to evaluate whether or not the girasas would be content with one person (me) when we are not even to the point of living as a 6th race yet, or whether that girasas is very intent on getting out there into as many humans as possible and might want to use me as a "jumping point" with which to jump ship. What is the way for me to manage this living thing? Do I focus on holding tight to them, possessing them, and exhibiting them (as proof) or do I focus on spreading them out into everyone I meet and talk to?Which is proof and which are they happy doing?Edited by brendatucker, : No reason given.Edited by brendatucker, : No reason given.

Don't give up hope. Medical therapy can do wonders.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You know you like to market science as adhering to the proof, but honestly I don't think a scientist enjoys having to work with proof as much as they enjoy seeking the proof. Once we have the proof, you're done and we don't have a need for you anymore.The scientist I know loves to question, ponder, organize and re-organize so that they can look at the world in new ways. They don't love having black and white handed to them for the purpose of sitting on their hands.If someone raises a new and interesting question or challenge such as I believe that I have, why don't I see a rash of scientists getting out there and starting their investigations into the subject with all available resources in hand, trying their abilities at unlocking and unraveling secrets to life?Edited by brendatucker, : No reason given.

Proof? That is a common misconception. Scientists deal in evidence and explanations, not proof. For example, the theory of evolution is currently the best explanation for a wide range of facts and observations (evidence). It can, and certainly will change somewhat as new evidence is found. As such, scientists are never done. There is always another question to ponder. [qs]The scientist I know loves to question, ponder, organize and re-organize so that they can look at the world in new ways. They don't love having black and white handed to them for the purpose of sitting on their hands.[qs] The scientists I know (and I) spend a lot of time "questioning, pondering, organizing and re-organizing." The research will never be completed, but it is very satisfying to make a new discovery or to tie down some loose end. You are missing the first step in the process--facts and observations (evidence). You have been presenting us with statements with no evidence to support them. That would be fine if you were saying things like the sun is hot, and about 93 million miles away. Those statements have already been verified.But you are presenting us with some weird and nonsensical stuff, with no supporting evidence at all. You are apparently pursuing this with the devotion we normally see in an internet crank who has, for example, the secret carburetor that delivers 500 miles per gallon--if somebody will just listen to him.Don't be surprised when scientists don't drop their current research and rush after your wild goose until you come up with real evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This has come about are far as it can. I'm sorry Brnda, but talking with you is too much like being at work. At least there I get paid.Take care of your mad self.

This is the point you keep making and the one that everyone else keeps trying to explain to you.There are literally an infinite number of "interesting theories" of which all but a tiny tiny tiny few will be utter nonsense. Science largely judges how "interesting" and worthy of consideration a theory is by how likely it is to be true. In the absence of any reason to think that a particular theory is actually true there is no reason to differentiate it from the multitude of equally unsupported and completely pointless theories that it is conceivably possible to investigate.
You have given us no reason to differentiate your theory from any other. It is no more "interesting" or worthy of consideration as far as science is concerned than the idea that subterranean martian lizards created humans as part of a bizzarre experiment. In short your unsupported theory sounds like nonsene, in the absence of any evidence will be considered to be nonsense and you will be considered a crank on a loony mission to peddle this nonsense.THE BUS TEST
If the only reasons you can give as to why your theory is worthy of consideration can also be applield to the pet theories of mad people on buses (e.g. the theory is novel, the theory is interesting, the theory will spiritually enlighten you, nobody else has thought of it, it has been ignored by the scientific community etc. etc. etc.) then you will be classed in the same category as those mad people ranting on buses.Before requesting that others should consider your theory in future try and see it from their point of view first. Ask yourself the question 'Can the reasons I am giving as to why my theory should be considered valid be applied equally to the rantings of a lunatic on a bus who has a pet theory that is just as unevidenced and novel'.If the answer is yes to the above question then you and your theory should not expect to treated any differntly to the mad guy on the bus and his pet theory.That is why you are getting the reaction that you are getting.
Do you understand this?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Have you ever looked at the Bibliography for THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Blavatsky throughout the book, ties in great literature from around the globe. This is the difference between your guy on the bus and her producing several volumes describing evolution the way she does.The other important consideration is that many, many, people, I am sure read the book when it was originally published in 1888. I am asking the media (through you) to reopen these volumes. Why? Because she knew she was writing it when1)women did not have equal rights,
2)the details of the theory were fascinating without the "tie in" that is largely missing when we read the theosophical literature,
3) it wasn't until 1995 when I made this discovery of how races could be distinctly represented in a new way that the "secret" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE could be more fully assessed.I don't expect you to repeat what the early readers of her volumes understood to be in the book. I am only asking that you reconsider what she wrote in the light of understanding the races in the sense that I have described them - a higher kingdom sharing the body of the lower kingdom and evolving it by that influence.Why would someone write secrets that she knew couldn't be discovered until over a century later? That's the way the story unfolds. That's all I know. But now, there is not just some "magical" presentation of a vast celestial scheme of rounds and globes. Now there is a practical "tie-in" to Christianity with emphasis on a future for the human kingdom promising greater and greater amounts of interaction with a higher (currently non-physical, but approaching closer and closer nevertheless) kingdom of nature that can lead to knowledge and books that are not based upon investigations of material life. The knowledge is based on transmission by thought from the higher kingdom to the lower.

Not really.
The mad guys on the buses of London can be incredibly clever, extremely knowledgeable, ridiculously devoted to their particular delusion, insanely single minded in their advocacy and their theories can be incredibly intricate and even superficially well supported. The one thing that they do have in common is a complete and utter lack of objective scientifically valid physical evidence.If you cannot see why you and your theory are of the same ilk then you are beyond help.I wish you well. Good luck.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you had the faintest idea why people are encouraged to read in this country, you might understand that reading ties us all together on the great variety of life. Why are we as students encouraged to read and learn reading? It certainly isn't so that we can identify butterflies. It is so we can become broad learners with focus.Broaden out by debating - not testing. Broaden out by conceiving - not treating. Then you may understand your fellow man - and yourself - because you took the time to delve into another person's reasons for what they do.I can submit to you here, but not on very many other platforms, something unique and freeing. This concept rings with the tolls of freedom. I can free you from thinking Christians and Bible toters are clinging to nonsense. I can free you into an understanding by using your imagination about what it would be like to meet a higher kingdom and engage them daily in your life. But I ask other experts for assistance because the current platforms are so few. If the other humans can take up this work, we will have books that pose suggestions in consciousness raising and consciousness assisting. We can grow as a nation.

Please, feel free to do so. But in 250 posts you have yet to document anything you have claimed. How? By posting more nonsense? All you have done so far is make unsupported contentions. Feel free to document something, somewhere, just once. That would be a good start. Deservedly so. And you have just about used this one up as well.Hint: just document one claim. Provide some evidence for something. Otherwise why should we pay any attention to this stuff?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Try to understand me: there is a book containing a "decent" theory of evolution published in 1888 that has been misunderstood by 100% (as far as I can discern) of the readers who investigated what was written in that book.I can change the perception of the book by introducing you to a new concept for which there is, as of yet, no known word, but for which I have designated a word: girasas.When we have a clearer perception of what is in this book: THE SECRET DOCTRINE (named appropriately), we can study as children conditions for life as the typical scientist dictates and conditions for life under a set of circumstances that haven't even been duly represented up to this point in time.As children come to learn about competing "directives" for which they can discern any given set of circumstances, they can also learn to choose rightfully one or the other governing theory for that particular given.I think that many competing occupations vie for the attention and time of the young, magnified at a certain age by the need to find placement in a paying job. The payscale that exists for different types of occupations and the level of education required for those occupations are indicators of a hierarchy of work.Groups that demand and practice summations of evidence would include scientists and judiciary. Less educated and less highly paid positions include journalists and teachers. As long as scientists continue to protect and heal human beings in a loving way, we are grateful to them, just as we are to those who put offenders behind bars. Once a scientist elects to willingly attack the safety and security of the lives of individuals (whether consciously or unconsciously), we need to enact measures that will control them in order to alleviate the discomfort of people who live freely in our society.We have to ask ourselves which condition is more dangerous: Is it more dangerous to live with the girasas (where scientists refuse to treat or acknowledge problems people encounter due to the invasion) or is it more dangerous to live without the girasas, whereby individuals may fall prone to immorality and debauchery and thereby become offenders that need the judicial intervention at a cost to all of us?Where is the greater danger? Due to the superior wisdom, kindness, and admitted love between the two kingdoms, it would appear that there is more danger when individuals do not make use of their guidance, but each case is unique and distinctive.At times, people feel threatened by the occurrences in their lives in a way that would induce them to seek the aid of a scientifically trained, highly paid assistant for a variety of symptoms. However, no human being currently is prepared to stand up for their rights and demonstrate that they have well thought out plans of action to avoid intrusive circumstances that cause people to behave in ways that are not considered normal.If we can open lines of communication so that offenses can be attributed rightfully to one or the other of the existing kingdoms of nature, suggested by the word girasas and human, then we can prepare for a road that will take us openly forward into a future that is uncertain.Even if the girasas are recognized as taking part in some of the human lives on earth today, we do not know enough about them that we can safely and without a doubt claim that they follow only one course of action in dealings with human beings. Categorizing and keeping records of events that are obviously related to their well being would be a start on the road to knowing our futures better and working toward a safer partnership between the two groups.Asking scientists to participate in the process of discerning and communicating with this life is based upon their level of training and payscale. Finding scientists reluctant to embark on this type of mission or endeavor, puts them at fault in their chosen commitment to life on earth. Removing the responsibility from the scientific forum will result in a departure from their enjoyed hierarchical superiority, and pay as well as esteem will be lavished on those who can commit their lives to this hefty endeavor.Or so it seems to me that that should be the case.Journalists and teachers are not without abilities that place them in positions superior to either scientists or judiciary. These two groups of workers have the abilities to communicate far superiorly to that of the scientist or judge. If we exalt these fields and reduce the pay, education, and other benefits associated with fact finding and application, we could change our world into a freer society, one that is dependent upon data and self-analysis, rather than the discerning powers of a few intellectual beacons. The data that we wish to make use of is not hard fact, but stories told by the historians, writers, and journalists who present life to us in a wholesome manner and not the disjointed ramblings of correctional workers (since the numbers are few) and scientists (who think often molecularly rather than holistically.) Edited by brendatucker, : No reason given.

Misunderstood by 100% of the readers, until you came along?Perhaps instead the book was accurately understood by the readers and properly consigned to the ashcan of history. Where it rested with all the acclaim it deserved, until you came along?You have continued to make unsupported contentions. You really have to find some evidence for anyone to take you seriously.Take, for example, your closing paragraph: Trash the scientists and you'll find yourself living in a cave. Journalists invent nothing, and just pass on what others tell them, usually in mangled form. Teachers fulfill a much-needed function, but they also invent nothing until the graduate level. You exalt journalists over scientists and you'll just drive productive scientists to other countries. If you do that you will lose your standard of living, and all the journalists around won't be able to help as journalists make and invent nothing. (Actually, they do invent a lot, but nothing productive.)Those "few intellectual beacons" you mention are the brains of a society, and without them a society can't compete; for example, Germany probably lost World War II because it drove a few Jewish scientists out of the country prior to the war. And now you want to drive productive scientists out of this country, in favor of journalists and teachers, simply to support 100 year old nonsense already relegated to the ashcan of history? That's nuts! This sentence just makes no sense at all. You are rambling in the best tradition of train-of-thought writing, but you have long since ceased to be meaningful or even entertaining.I'm going to try to refrain from any additional responses until you come up with something useful. I'm not giving that good odds. Bye.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Surely critical thought requires us to differentiate between that which is worth studying and that which is not?
By your argument every idea ever held by anyone is worthy of investigation and consideration on the basis of it broadening our minds. The human race would make no progress while it eternally chases it's tail up every available blind alley.An idea has to be demonstrably not a blind alley in order for it to take precedence over all of the other possible blind alleys available (an infinite number). We cannot debate every idea ever had. Even a cursory test can eliminate more blind alleys than a lifetime of debating nonsense ever will. We can all conceive of infinite variations of nonsense. We can only physically "treat" that which actually exists. You fail to understand the quite obvious and seemingly universal reaction of others to your ideas. Which part of the requirement to be able to differentiate your idea from every other piece of sheer nonsense out there do you not understand? You have repeatedly been told here why it is your ideas are not deemed worthy of serious consideration. You are unlikely to find many other places where people will be even this patient or accommodating.Evidence is the key. Without it you are just another nutjob on a crusade of torrential nonsense as far as the rest of the world is concerned.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Would it be too much to expect something on the order of rewards for this discovery?After all, it is merely academic - to be able to read a book and understand what is in it.This is a modern interpretation of classic "truth" (H.P.B.'s SECRET DOCTRINE.) It is also relevant in the face of space exploration. What would we do if we met a higher intelligence? I'm only placing that intelligence within each of us on an evolutionary "program." This is a defensive tactic as the higher intelligence would be less likely to harm the thing that gives it life.Think about it. An academic accomplishment is rewarded on what basis? When we take it out of the academic arena and put it on the front page of the newspaper, we invite everyone to marvel at its presence here.