What is sceptic, materialist science?

[tvaeli]

You think that those three things now *found something out*?

Skepticism, it's thought as something, which is doubting ideas about spirit, and certain about ideas about matter:

• For example, it doubts in emotions, personal cognition and existance of life, explaining that it's the energy, which moves matter in large, dead toxic waste. I hear it along these lines.
• Properly, skepticism is to not close the topics, but to add more and more unknowns: this is philosophy.
  • The "results" skeptics achieved are not skepticism.
• For example, skeptic said "there is 1% probability of reincarnation, therefore it's not true": skepticism is *not* about believing things, which have 99% probability; if you have 10 such things, you have around 90% probability of learning truly; with 20 things which are 99% probable, your "science" is starting to approach 80% probability.
• We do not have "fallback cases": skeptics are very sure that "if this is false, the other one is true" - rather, where did you get this other one, and how can absense have this beyond-statistical model that if all statistics fails, absense is simpler and true?

 

Materialist scientific approach:

• Many people who are "arguing" against spirituality using scientific materialist approach are annoying me a lot.
  • They have history of debunking people, using very weird words etc. They think this is the righteous side of neutral science, which has done it's work and is now making others homeless, jobless and useless as their practical work, based on "neutral science discussions" where they were proudly repeating that nobody was attacked under this philosphical conversation.
    • While I wasn't *so* proud for nobody being attacked in neutral conversations, rather such conversation seems easy and natural;
    • the people who are proud of it, have many real-life consequences and claim that neutrality is now "impossible" as they found out others are wrong;
• Do not trust in this people; they say it's skeptical and scientific to be laymen, peasants and idiots making science claims:
  • Materialist: must really understand the philosophical doctrine of cause and effect, matter etc., but they cannot be materialist if they do not believe in spirit, because deduction that goals do not exist is false. If spirit is not carrying goals in humans, it must be matter in humans, and then matter has goals: in body and shape of life, animals and ourselves.
  • Materialist science "position" is rather mine - despite being spiritual, I do all math, I program, I can do physics, engineering, hard math. People who can not do all these things, who cannot freely study the simple sciences about things, manipulate and control those things properly and build with both new and old technology and means: people who start making forgiveness claims when asked to do the real math - calculate it up, build a system, show how many wheels go in - are not scientific materialists: they are non-scientific materialists, and claims that there are any "results" about discussions of spiritual and material people is wrong: we do not have this result that goal-based life forms do not exist because "it"'s material.

 

Being skeptical does not mean you desperately need to get some "right" understanding from materialist scientists:

• It means you are tolerant about false claims, and people who are wrong are generally not dangerous. Instead of carrying the "neutral science" to the "right side", and fighting to make other homeless, jobless and useless as if you are under heavy threat: really skeptical people, societies etc. are very tolerant for people who got it wrong or right, not by having fighting the right view, but by questioning, doubting and verifying their everyday things, on everyday basis, not expecting some ultimate success where somebody renders somebody else false.

 

Lately I was heavily criticized for not using scientific, neutral arguments about skeptics and atheists in my life and otherwere:

• We did have initial assumption that it's going to be scientific argument;
• people I refer have long been debunking, and making claims about ability to work based on spirituality: they say, people with spirit understanding are not able to work; only the people who draw bullshit conclusions are.
• I am not using bad language: the words I use do not seem worse than "debunk", and the effects they give cannot be worse than what I have seen - huge percent of back then hopeful people are not more or less outcase, because they believe people have goals and are not just floating around causes and effects, being "made of dead matter" and therefore - dead as dead.

[tvaeli]

The thing is:

Material: it's caused by cause and effect.

Spiritual: it's by goal and resolution, where the goal is opened much by the future - the argument, including the parameters, come from future, and thus the base truth can change.

We can be materialist, but stating that there is only matter and not spirit: contradicts with common sense, because then, it would be unexplainable that we have any *intents and goals* at all.