Fearing death

[dianaiad]

And now you know more about my fathers NDEs ... Wow

I read what you wrote. I commented upon what you wrote. Please don't ask me to read your mind. You did not mention that your father told any near death stories.

If you think you did, I suggest you reread your own post.

 

[ChristineM]

In other words, you check with other people you trust to see if they agree with the information you have. If they ALSO tell you 'what's what,' you figure then that you have 'checked for yourself?"

You haven't.

You have merely confirmed that there is a consensus of belief about whatever it is.

"Checking for yourself' means DOING YOUR OWN MEASUREMENTS AND EXPERIMENTS.

You know, measuring the depth of the Challenger Deep with your own cables.


there isn't anything wrong with checking with people you trust to confirm the stuff you think you know. It's the way mankind has grown technologically, logically, and everything else. It's how we do things; we trust those who came before us. it's a good thing. It's what education IS all about.

However, pretending that it is something it is not is irritating. To utterly dismiss something you disagree with BECAUSE those who believe differently from you got their information from people they trust...and you don't...is illogical.



HAVE you personally measured the depth of the Challenger Deep? The distance from the earth to the moon? The orbit of the planets? Done the experiments which prove the speed of light, which would allow you to properly measure the distance from the earth to the moon?

HAVE you personally mapped the earth, so that you know where the capital of Denmark is?

HAVE you personally done the experiments which prove that nightshade is a bad idea for a restorative tea?

HAVE you personally tested water hemlock to see if it will kill you, as the reports say it killed Socrates?

Or have you taken the word of people you trust about that stuff?

You haven't claimed to do any of the things I have asked about; the majority of which, btw, very, very few people have done; we trust those who did to be right about them.

In actuality, I think I do know more about you than you do yourself, if you still think that you have personally conducted the experiments that prove every single scientific idea you believe to be true. I mean, really, Christine; you personally have admitted, at least twice, that your idea of 'checking for yourself' is 'education' and checking references.

It's not.

Checking references is simply gathering the opinions of more people you trust to tell you stuff. It is NOT 'checking for yourself."

Here's a hint:

WE both know/believe that if we apply an electrical current to TNT could make it explode, and constant exposure to it will turn your skin yellow. Well, you might not know about the second bit, but I'm sure you are aware of the first.

How do you know that? Because you read it somewhere? I know it because I used to work in a munitions factory and experienced both things. I, indeed, 'checked it for myself."

You...unless you also worked in a munitions plant, know this because you read it. Someone told you. If you had a problem with the idea, you could look it up and see if others agree. That is NOT 'checking for yourself." that is checking references...adding to your list of people you trust.

So yeah. I'm telling you how you think...because YOU told ME how you 'check for yourself,' and I'm telling you that checking references is not 'checking for yourself.'

I'm not insulting you, Christine. I'm not calling your intelligence or your honesty into question here, in any way. I'm telling you that you are WRONG by claiming that doing the experiments for yourself ARE THE SAME AS believing the words of those who claimed to have done them for themselves.

They are very different.

Other people... Experts in their field. Sorry that experts know more than the bible but really not my problem. I gave not bothered reading more than the first sentence of your post becsus you are simply going round in circles because you won't accept people can be different from your pretty picture if them

 

[ChristineM]

I read what you wrote. I commented upon what you wrote. Please don't ask me to read your mind. You did not mention that your father told any near death stories.

If you think you did, I suggest you reread your own post.

You appear to think you can read my mind, you never tire of telling me who i am

 

[syo]

I find it strange that some oh so holy Christians who appear to spend their lives looking skywards and going on about how wonderful it will be to be in heaven with god, seem to do everything they can to keep alive if they are ill. Why do they fear dying if the idea of heaven is so attractive, surely they would like to get up there at the earliest opportunity? Is it possible in their heart of hearts they have doubts about their after death experience?

They see illness as great misfortune. Or a punishment. Or something that is wrong. They don't see illnesses as natural death.

 

[dianaiad]

Other people... Experts in their field. Sorry that experts know more than the bible but really not my problem. I gave not bothered reading more than the first sentence of your post becsus you are simply going round in circles because you won't accept people can be different from your pretty picture if them

Other people. Experts in their field. People you trust.

That's how you know stuff, because people you trust told you so. You have NOT done your own checking. That is my point, and the one you keep missing.

.....and I haven't mentioned the Bible even once. I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm talking about science and the world around us.

You didn't read my post. Fine.

I talked about TNT and what sets it off, and that it turns your skin yellow if you work with it.

You can find out about it by examining references: here are two extremely good ones.

Regarding TNT poisoning:

2,4,6-TRINITROTOLUENE - National Library of Medicine HSDB Database
The causes and prevention of tri-nitro-toluene (TNT) poisoning - The National Archives blog

Regarding the likelihood of static electricity causing a TNT explosion:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030438949385100S

Good references from trustworthy sources.

YOU would claim that you 'checked for yourself' if all you did to confirm my statement that TNT turns your skin yellow and can be detonated by static electricity.

But you would not have.

I worked in a munitions factory in the early 1970's. I worked with TNT, land mines and the detonators that went in them. I know first hand about how TNT (and its analogs) turn your skin yellow, because I had yellow fingers for months. I know that static electricity can set that stuff off because I have seen it happen. THAT, Christine, is 'checking for yourself."

Surely you can see the difference? Personally, I wish my knowledge of TNT were restricted to research and checking with experts, but it's not. I worked with it. Personally.

YOU need to figure out the difference. There's nothing wrong with relying on experts and trustworthy teachers. The only problem lies in figuring that doing so is the same thing as doing your own experiments and learning stuff from the results of those experiments.

Because it's not.

The other problem is that those who get all their knowledge of the scientific world from 'experts in their fields' without doing any of the work/experiments themselves have no right to dismiss what other people believe BECAUSE those other people get their knowledge from people THEY trust.

It's hypocrisy defined.

 

[dianaiad]

You appear to think you can read my mind, you never tire of telling me who i am

I simply believe what you write. YOU are the one who told me how you 'check for yourself.' If I believe you, how is that a problem?

 

[ChristineM]

I simply believe what you write. YOU are the one who told me how you 'check for yourself.' If I believe you, how is that a problem?

Because you dont accept that consulting experts in a field about the field is a valid form of education.

Wtf did you do at school. 'Oh its only a teacher trying to educate me, he/she knows nothing about what he/she teaches"

 

[dianaiad]

Because you dont accept that consulting experts in a field about the field is a valid form of education.

That is not true. In fact, I several times mentioned that it IS education, that we all learn stuff that way, that there is nothing wrong with learning stuff that way. In fact, I made it VERY clear that most of what we know about the world is gained in that way. In fact, my major point is that we DO learn most of what we believe to be true that way, and that there is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that 'checking for yourself' is not the same thing as confirming stuff with the people we trust, who taught us things.

You can trust a teacher who tells you that water boils at 212 degrees (at sea level) but that at 7500 feet, it boils at about 198 degrees. This is why cake mixes have 'high altitude' directions on the side of the box. You can trust her, and she's right. But trusting her is NOT the same thing as taking a pot of water and measuring the boiling point at sea level, then going up the mountain and measuring again, YOURSELF.

Do you see the difference yet?

Wtf did you do at school.

I learned, and then taught, the difference between checking references and doing one's own experiments, for one thing. For another, I learned a great deal more about logic than you are displaying. Oh, and I didn't use the "F" bomb, even in initials.

'Oh its only a teacher trying to educate me, he/she knows nothing about what he/she teaches"

Except that's YOUR claim, not mine. I NEVER said that one should NOT trust others, and believe what one is taught. I said that trusting others when they tell you stuff is one thing...and doing your own experiments to confirm that truth is quite another.

Checking references is NOT the same thing as 'checking for yourself," Christine.

You are jumping to conclusions and assumptions that simply do not exist. You are misrepresenting my position, accusing me of things I have not done or said, and are getting angry over absolutely nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

That is not true. In fact, I several times mentioned that it IS education, that we all learn stuff that way, that there is nothing wrong with learning stuff that way. In fact, I made it VERY clear that most of what we know about the world is gained in that way. In fact, my major point is that we DO learn most of what we believe to be true that way, and that there is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that 'checking for yourself' is not the same thing as confirming stuff with the people we trust, who taught us things.

You can trust a teacher who tells you that water boils at 212 degrees (at sea level) but that at 7500 feet, it boils at about 198 degrees. This is why cake mixes have 'high altitude' directions on the side of the box. You can trust her, and she's right. But trusting her is NOT the same thing as taking a pot of water and measuring the boiling point at sea level, then going up the mountain and measuring again, YOURSELF.

Do you see the difference yet?



I learned, and then taught, the difference between checking references and doing one's own experiments, for one thing. For another, I learned a great deal more about logic than you are displaying. Oh, and I didn't use the "F" bomb, even in initials.



Except that's YOUR claim, not mine. I NEVER said that one should NOT trust others, and believe what one is taught. I said that trusting others when they tell you stuff is one thing...and doing your own experiments to confirm that truth is quite another.

Checking references is NOT the same thing as 'checking for yourself," Christine.

You are jumping to conclusions and assumptions that simply do not exist. You are misrepresenting my position, accusing me of things I have not done or said, and are getting angry over absolutely nothing.

Whatever, you posts speak for themselves and i am done

 

[dianaiad]

Whatever, you posts speak for themselves and i am done

You are correct; my posts DO speak for themselves, and so do yours.
My point:

We all of us learn most of what we believe to be true from people we trust; teachers, 'experts in their fields." Nothing wrong with that. It's not POSSIBLE for all of us to do our own experiments to learn stuff from scratch.

However, getting information from people we trust is not the same thing as doing the experiments ourselves. "Checking for yourself' involves doing those experiments, NOT confirming a belief from someone ELSE we trust.

you have not done the personal experiments required to confirm everything you believe you know. It's not possible for any human to have done that. You haven't, I haven't.

It is not an insult or an unwarranted assumption to say so.

You need to understand the difference between information you gain from 'education' and 'experts in the field" and information gained from doing your own experiments and measurements. You are equating the two, and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

You have spent a great deal of time being insulted and, I think, deliberately misrepresenting that point, because I write that.

Why? What is your objection to this?

Well, never mind, you have left the field in a huff, so that question won't be answered.

 

[ChristineM]

You are correct; my posts DO speak for themselves, and so do yours.
My point:

We all of us learn most of what we believe to be true from people we trust; teachers, 'experts in their fields." Nothing wrong with that. It's not POSSIBLE for all of us to do our own experiments to learn stuff from scratch.

However, getting information from people we trust is not the same thing as doing the experiments ourselves. "Checking for yourself' involves doing those experiments, NOT confirming a belief from someone ELSE we trust.

you have not done the personal experiments required to confirm everything you believe you know. It's not possible for any human to have done that. You haven't, I haven't.

It is not an insult or an unwarranted assumption to say so.

You need to understand the difference between information you gain from 'education' and 'experts in the field" and information gained from doing your own experiments and measurements. You are equating the two, and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

You have spent a great deal of time being insulted and, I think, deliberately misrepresenting that point, because I write that.

Why? What is your objection to this?

Well, never mind, you have left the field in a huff, so that question won't be answered.

You obviously didnt learn the meaning of the term 'im done' in that schooling of yours, or perhaps you just forgot to check the meaning

 

[dianaiad]

You obviously didnt learn the meaning of the term 'im done' in that schooling of yours, or perhaps you just forgot to check the meaning

Hon, you said you were done. That you left the field in a huff doesn't mean that *I* have to shut up.

............and obviously, you weren't done.

 

[ChristineM]

Hon, you said you were done. That you left the field in a huff doesn't mean that *I* have to shut up.

............and obviously, you weren't done.

You still here?

 

[dianaiad]

You still here?

Pretty much always. I see that you are still here, too.

And that was fun. Shall we talk about something else?

 

[ChristineM]

Pretty much always. I see that you are still here, too.

And that was fun. Shall we talk about something else?

Not unless you take your blinkers off

 

[dianaiad]

Not unless you take your blinkers off

(sigh)

Christine, just because I have different opinions than yours on one thing...or two...doesn't mean that I'm the one with the blinkers, or that we can't discuss other things. We can't be of completely different species, after all.

 

[ChristineM]

(sigh)

Christine, just because I have different opinions than yours on one thing...or two...doesn't mean that I'm the one with the blinkers, or that we can't discuss other things. We can't be of completely different species, after all.

They were not only different you tried to impose them onto me

 

[dianaiad]

They were not only different you tried to impose them onto me

No, Christine. I was making an argument. Expressing my opinions. I'm allowed.

And aren't you 'imposing' your views on me in the same way, insisting that I accept your POV as my own? I see no difference. You don't have to agree with me. Make your own arguments, make up your own mind.

However, if we are discussing definitions, such as the difference between 'education' and 'original experimentation,' and you keep claiming that they are the same thing, I WILL correct you, because that is a factually incorrect stand to take.

You don't believe in a deity. I do. I don't expect you to suddenly believe in one simply because I do.

 

[JJ50]

It doesn't matter if people don't see religion the way others do, as long as they don't threaten others with dire consequences if they don't see it their way.

 

[ChristineM]

No, Christine. I was making an argument. Expressing my opinions. I'm allowed.

And aren't you 'imposing' your views on me in the same way, insisting that I accept your POV as my own? I see no difference. You don't have to agree with me. Make your own arguments, make up your own mind.

However, if we are discussing definitions, such as the difference between 'education' and 'original experimentation,' and you keep claiming that they are the same thing, I WILL correct you, because that is a factually incorrect stand to take.

You don't believe in a deity. I do. I don't expect you to suddenly believe in one simply because I do.

When you were denying me my mindset and imposing yours, that was not making argument. When you were denying my dyslexia, that was not making argument. When you were belittling my father's NDEs, that was not making argument

Maybe the problem is style. I am afraid your style is one that irks me (on several occasions) pity really because i enjoyed our first interactions