One big problem I know: Challenging and questioning your own pre-conceived notions and ideas...

[Neogaia777]

One big problem I know: Challenging and questioning your own pre-conceived notions and ideas (for the sake of the truth)...

Very few are brave enough to actually do this, and it is a major problem... We like to figure and have things figured out, it makes us feel secure when we "think" we know or have learned something, and very, very few of us are willing to wreck or tear down or are very willing at all to even begin to question or even take the risk involved in questioning or challenging what we only "think we know" or have supposedly figured out or have learned (our pre-conceived notions and ideas, or perceptions) in a real search for the "real truth" in the cause of and for the sake of "truth", cause we "Hate" it very, very much...

It's a blow to our ego most of us just can't take or handle very well at all... We "fight" it and "resist" it (most of us) almost every time... And, you wonder why most of us don't know "truth"... And you wonder why the world is so full of lies and so much B.S.... That line "You can't handle the truth!"... Almost right... More like "You can't handle what it takes (the process) to "get at" the "Truth", would be more accurate...

We like it when we get something figured out that "works for us"... Most of us really do not even care if it's a lie or based upon a lie... We "hate" challenging it and most of us, "won't" or refuse to, and, anyone that comes along that causes us to question or doubt it, we "hate" very much also...

And, the longer we hang and hold onto a supposed "truth" that most often is a lie or is based upon a lie, but has "worked" so well for us up to the present time, the longer we hang onto to a supposed truth most often based upon a lie, the longer it has "seemed to" always "work for us" the stronger and to a much greater degree do we "resist" being "willing" to alter, modify or doubt or question the slightest "possibility" of "changing" it...

We "hate" it very, very, very much... And, "hate" anyone who comes along who makes or causes us to question it and saying that it "needs to change"... This is a serious problem... But, there are, a very, very few of us real, genuine "truth seekers" that are more honest and most of us, are "brave enough" to brave this process, and take this risk on a daily basis most of the time...

God Bless!

 

[Gene2memE]

I'd like you to challenge your preconceived notions about the correct use and placement of ellipses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One big problem I know: Challenging and questioning your own pre-conceived notions and ideas (for the sake of the truth)...

I recommend studying science - the history of science and contemporary science. You'll find preconceptions, intuitions, beliefs, and discoveries are continually challenged; only the most robust and resilient ideas survive long-term. It's a system for the evolution of knowledge

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One big problem I know: Challenging and questioning your own pre-conceived notions and ideas (for the sake of the truth)...

Very few are brave enough to actually do this, and it is a major problem... We like to figure and have things figured out, it makes us feel when we "think" we know or have learned something, and very, very few of us are willing to wreck or tear down or are very willing at all to even begin to question or even take the risk involved in questioning or challenging what we only "think we know" or have supposedly figured out or have learned (our pre-conceived notions and ideas, or perceptions) in a real search for the "real truth" in the cause of and for the sake of "truth", cause we "Hate" it very, very much...

It's a blow to our ego most of us just can't take or handle very well at all... We "fight" it and "resist" it (most of us) almost every time... And, you wonder why most of us don't know "truth"... And you wonder why the world is so full of lies and so much B.S.... That line "You can't handle the truth!"... Almost right... More like "You can't handle what it takes (the process) to "get at" the "Truth", would be more accurate...

We like it when we get something figured out that "works for us"... Most of us really do not even care if it's a lie or based upon a lie... We "hate" challenging it and most of us, "won't" or refuse to, and, anyone that comes along that causes us to question or doubt it, we "hate" very much also...

And, the longer we hang and hold onto a supposed "truth" that most often is a lie or is based upon a lie, but has "worked" so well for us up to the present time, the longer we hang onto to a supposed truth most often based upon a lie, the longer it has "seemed to" always "work for us" the stronger and to a much greater degree do we "resist" being "willing" to alter, modify or doubt or question the slightest "possibility" of "changing" it...

We "hate" it very, very, very much... And, "hate" anyone who comes along who makes or causes us to question it and saying that it "needs to change"... This is a serious problem... But, there are, a very, very few of us real, genuine "truth seekers" that are more honest and most of us, are "brave enough" to brave this process, and take this risk on a daily basis most of the time...

God Bless!

Hello Neo,

From what I've observed of people, there are some who conceive of "TRUTH" as some kind of basic, simple entity of thought wherein there is little to figure out in the attempt to understand how it embodies reality. I, on the other hand, would tend to disagree with this.

I suggest that truth isn't necessarily a simple concept, but rather one that is complex and subject to a relative, personal framework of perception; it also probably shouldn't be seen as a synonym for "REALITY," whether that of the past, present, or future. And I think the relative implications that are embedded within the nature of truth apply across the board in all human endeavors, whether it is those of religion, philosophy, or science.

So, not only will I acknowledge that we often "Can't handle the truth!" as Colonel Jessup contended in the movie, A Few Good Men, but I will also inquire with Pontius Pilate and ask, "What is truth [exactly]"? In wrestling with this question, I think we'll find a lot less we can "hate on" other people about, as well as a motivation to try to understand how and why other people see the world as they do.

2PhiloVoid

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

One big problem I know: Challenging and questioning your own pre-conceived notions and ideas (for the sake of the truth)...

Very few are brave enough to actually do this, and it is a major problem...

Ditto the replies you got so far - all indicative of not wanting to be challenged even...

It was the same all along - ever since Y'SHUA walked on earth -

it is the same challenge TODAY as in the first century, and their is only one remedy.

The pre-conceived notions and ideas call the TRUTH hate, and hate the TRUTH.

The "SYSTEM" (society/ the world and all of its lusts and envies and goals and purposes) is entirely corrupt and deceptive - not a mixture of good and bad.

 

[Michael]

I recommend studying science - the history of science and contemporary science. You'll find preconceptions, intuitions, beliefs, and discoveries are continually challenged; only the most robust and resilient ideas survive long-term. It's a system for the evolution of knowledge

Meh. That's really hasn't been my experience as it relates to the field of astronomy. Mainstream astronomers hate anyone pointing out that their "dark" stuff has been falsified a dozen different ways over the past decade, and they utterly resent anyone pointing out that there are empirical alternatives to their supernatural (dark) creation mythology.

The problem relates to human nature and "scientists" are human too.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Meh. That's really hasn't been my experience as it relates to the field of astronomy. Mainstream astronomers hate anyone pointing out that their "dark" stuff has been falsified a dozen different ways over the past decade, and they utterly resent anyone pointing out that there are empirical alternatives to their supernatural (dark) creation mythology.

I'm not getting drawn in to your personal obsession. But if you check out the history of astronomical and cosmological ideas, you'll see what I've described.

 

[Michael]

I'm not getting drawn in to your personal obsession. But if you check out the history of astronomical and cosmological ideas, you'll see what I've described.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

The only thing that is holding LCDM theory together in 2016 is a severe case of confirmation bias, and a bad habit of the mainstream just burying their collective heads in the sand with respect to the failed results of their own 'tests'. Their so called "tests" don't actually "test" anything. If the results happen to confirm their preconceived ideas they publicly crow like roosters, but any failed test is simply swept under the rug. In the case of DM theory, it's been a decade of failure after failure after failure, and they simply don't care.

The BICEP2 fiasco is a perfect example of them hyping the results to start with, and then simply ignoring their own failures.

 

[lesliedellow]

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

The only thing that is holding LCDM theory together in 2016 is a severe case of confirmation bias

Blah, blah, blah. Didn't you just know that he wouldn't be able to let a thread go past without drawing his off topic EU nonsense into it?

 

[RickG]

And, the longer we hang and hold onto a supposed "truth" that most often is a lie or is based upon a lie, but has "worked" so well for us up to the present time, the longer we hang onto to a supposed truth most often based upon a lie, the longer it has "seemed to" always "work for us" the stronger and to a much greater degree do we "resist" being "willing" to alter, modify or doubt or question the slightest "possibility" of "changing" it...

That is a description of what the scientific community refers to as "intellectual dishonesty". That is utilizing all the evidence that appears to support ones position while ignoring all the evidence showing it not to support it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Almost any field of study can be prone to this, any kind of attained knowledge by man, with the exception of maybe mathematics... Some may be more or less prone to it than others, but I don't think that any is 100% or 0% either way...

I'll admit, I hate having to re-evaluate things that I learned that I was almost sure of, especially ones that seemed to work and fit so well, when you first find out about it, your like "Yes!, Yeah!, that fits, that works, has to be right... Then the next day sometimes, when a hole is punched in it, your like "Ah, crap, now I have to start over and try something else..." And your disappointed at first, until you find something else, then your like "Yeah!, cool, that's awesome, that works, has to right, right...?" Then, the "Ah, crap..." all over again, rinse and repeat, so to speak...

Every field of study and almost all knowledge has some problems like this and it's bad eggs who resist and refuse this process... Thomas Edison when asked about what he learned in inventing the lightbulb, he said "He found a thousand ways how not to make a lightbulb and only and before finding one that worked..." This is kinda like this process of sorting through lies and falsehoods... Were gonna make mistakes... We have to, to "get there", but, we get there faster the more willing and less resistant we are with this process...

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Blah, blah, blah. Didn't you just know that he wouldn't be able to let a thread go past without drawing his off topic EU nonsense into it?

I hinted that it wouldn't be welcome, but he just can't help it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The pre-conceived notions and ideas call the TRUTH hate, and hate the TRUTH.

I challenge the assertion that we hate the truth. Per the OP, are you open to questioning your own pre-conceived notion that we hate the truth? Might you be wrong about this?

The "SYSTEM" (society/ the world and all of its lusts and envies and goals and purposes) is entirely corrupt and deceptive - not a mixture of good and bad.

Oh dear. So the world I live in is not even a mixture of good and bad? It is entirely corrupt?

OK, I challenge that one also. Per the OP, are you open to questioning your own pre-conceived notion that the world system is entirely corruption with no mixture of good? Might you be wrong about this?

 

[Michael]

Blah, blah, blah. Didn't you just know that he wouldn't be able to let a thread go past without drawing his off topic EU nonsense into it?

I didn't even mention EU theory in this thread. Furthermore, your overreaction simply demonstrates my point, and the thesis of this thread. People don't let go of their preconceived ideas easily, and they often resist the truth of empirical physics with great hostility.

 

[Michael]

I hinted that it wouldn't be welcome, but he just can't help it.

Atheists tend to look toward "science" as their surrogate source of truthiness, yet they somehow imagine scientists to be immune from the same human flaws that plague other areas of human endeavor. That was my point. Atheists will often defend a concept like LCDM theory *vehemently*, while rejecting any concept of an intelligent creator due to a perceived lack of an empirical cause/effect justification, even though no such standard is applied in "science". Even the concept of "evidence" has never been limited to empirically demonstrated cause/effect processes as LCDM theory demonstrates in spades.

 

[Michael]

I challenge the assertion that we hate the truth. Per the OP, are you open to questioning your own pre-conceived notion that we hate the truth? Might you be wrong about this?

Oh dear. So the world I live in is not even a mixture of good and bad? It is entirely corrupt?

OK, I challenge that one also. Per the OP, are you open to questioning your own pre-conceived notion that the world system is entirely corruption with no mixture of good? Might you be wrong about this?

I would say that we don't actually "hate truth", but we do tend to hate being wrong, and that often comes into conflict with reality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Atheists tend to look toward "science" as their surrogate source of truthiness, yet they somehow imagine scientists to be immune from the same human flaws that plague other areas of human endeavor. That was my point.

Then your point is wrong.

I challenge you to find one post here where the claim is made that no scientist ever had a human flaw!! Can you respond to what we actually write, please?

Atheists will often defend a concept like LCDM theory *vehemently*, while rejecting any concept of an intelligent creator due to a perceived lack of an empirical cause/effect justification, even though no such standard is applied in "science".

Huh? Where did any scientist here ever say that science does not need empirical justification? Where in the heck are you coming up with this stuff? Can you respond to what we actually write, please?

 

[doubtingmerle]

People don't let go of their preconceived ideas easily, and they often resist the truth of empirical physics with great hostility.

I noticed that too. For instance, we have abundant evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but some people can't get over their preconceived idea that it is several thousand years old. We have abundant evidence that we evolved form ape-like creatures who evolved from earlier animals, but some people can't get over their preconceived idea that God made us out of mud instead.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Atheists tend to look toward "science" as their surrogate source of truthiness, yet they somehow imagine scientists to be immune from the same human flaws that plague other areas of human endeavor. That was my point.

A self-defeating point. The main reason for the continuing evolution of the scientific method is our growing knowledge of the problematic effects of those human flaws. It is a methodology aimed at minimising the effects of those flaws. So while we acknowledge the existence of those flaws, we can also be confident that the results are as immune from the effects of them as currently possible - if the science is done properly.

 

[Neogaia777]

I noticed that too. For instance, we have abundant evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but some people can't get over their preconceived idea that it is several thousand years old. We have abundant evidence that we evolved form ape-like creatures who evolved from earlier animals, but some people can't get over their preconceived idea that God made us out of mud instead.

Both could be wrong, and there could be some lies and some truth to each, possibly... Even if the theory that the earth actually is 4.5 billion years old, it does not have to negate the possibility of a creator or intelligent designer being involved in it...

I came to this theory after watching a video that was very honest about the problems and errors or things and facts neither can explain away, facing both the strictest form of the non lenient, unyielding, classic creationist view, and also the strictest form and very non lenient, unyielding, classic evolutionist view, and proposed this:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...mbers-all-of-it-we-can-observe.7967464/unread

The problems being that if that theory is true or real, then "why" was it made, and things in were made to appear the way they do, which is kind of explained in the link to the post I provided above...

God Bless!