Metaphysics

"Yeah, no "professional scientist" would ever admit anything that would threaten their funding and grants."

Well no, that's not how it works, they would more get likely get their funding cut for proclaiming something as fact that has no actual evidence (also known as "lying") which is what you want scientists to do. It's the reason universities don't give grants to creationist "scientists". You're not actually interested in finding truth (the purpose of science), in fact what you're engaging in what is called "motivated reasoning", rather than looking at the actual evidence and drawing a conclusion (which is what science is), you're doing it the other way around, you've already arrived at your conclusion first (the conciousness is seperate from the brain) and looking for whatever evidence you can find to justify it ad hoc. Though your "evidence" mostly appears to just be baseless intuitive reasoning (also known as "feelings") and some quotes from scientists you've taken out of context ("Einstein believed in God!"...even though he actually didn't)

"Do you think the greatest scientists kept their inventions and ideas to themselves until they were 'peer reviewed' or until they received agreement from a 'respectable source'? That's what people who can't think for themselves do."

I'm not sure what you mean by that, are you asking if scientists should just proclaim their findings to the general public like they're absolute facts without having them peer reviewed and verified first? Because that actually would be quite irresponsible. For instance if someone supposedly found a cure for a disease, do you think they should be allowed to distribute it to the general public without it being extensivley tested and peer reviewed first (otherwise there could be dangerous, life threatening side effects unaccounted for)?

In addition to what Lowtack86 said, I would add that science is a group activity in which claims made by scientists are always examined and challenged for accuracy.


Scientists are human. They have biases, many of them make mistakes, some even lie. As a community, scientists depend on each other to correct for those biases, and that’s how we get better and more accurate models of reality.


Another pitfall of scientists being human with biases is that certain ideas become entrenched and the community resists challenges to those ideas. But because good science is always a public activity and because good science entails that anyone can check your work and try to duplicate it, as older generations die off and younger scientists replace them, good ideas that were resisted at first eventually come to prevail. You just have to make an effort and keep at it.


Your problem is that you are under the delusion that the paranormal ideas you already believed are examples of new ideas that are being repressed by older, entrenched ideologies.


In fact, the opposite is true—the paranormal stuff you push here are older models that have bene replaced. There was a time when very smart, respected scientists took things like ESP and non-physical minds seriously. But since those ideas failed to pass scrutiny and the evidence suggested newer and improved models, they have fallen into disfavor.


You are just stuck in the past, Heeeeey.

What you aren't going to attempt to discuss is science.

"I'm well aware that you don't know what I mean"

Yes, you're quite piss poor at conveying your ideas, which is why I asked you to clarify what you said


"What I'm referring to isn't about 'medicine'"

Medicine falls under the category of "inventions", which is what you originally said, are you now moving the goalpost because you just realized what you said was cripplingly stupid?


"Btw, when's the last time your scientists with their 'respectable sources' found a cure for anything? That's not what they get paid for."

Uh yeah how about the vaccine for a certain pandemic that's been going on for a few years?


"Like I said, having an open-minded discussion with atheists is like talking about colors to blind people"

Your half assesed analogy doesn't really work, unlike blind people and color, we understand the concept of God (many atheists were former believers themselves), but we reject it because there's no evidence. That's why you have to resort to false equivalencies ("blind people and color"), appeals to authority ("Even Einstein believed in God!"...even though he actually didn't) and ad homs ("ATHEISTS R STOOPID!") because you don't have any actual arguments.


"I have no idea why you limited people are even here on a board like this. All you do is display ignorance."

I mostly come here to argue with obnoxious, irrational idiots like you, it's pretty fun. That's why I really wish Arlon and SciFive would come back

"Why don't you go to the science board if you want to discuss science?"

I don't go there because the Science board is dead Besides, religion often clashes with science anyways, this board serves fine as a proxy "Science" board anyways. If someone on here was peddling creationist pseudoscience and I was correcting them on all their lies, and their response was "Why are you posting here anyways? Why don't you just go to the science board instead?", really at that point they're basically just saying "I can't defend my dogshit arguments, I want a safespace!" which appears to be what you're asking for. 

"I'm not going to get into vaccines and other tripe that you buy into"

Yeah probably because you're scientific illiterate and you know you would lose on that argument. Best to not open up that can of worms.


"The reason Arlon and SciFive left is probably because it gets tiring arguing with limited people."

They most likely left because they were tired of their dogshit arguments getting refuted and decided to go look for a safespace that didn't have big mean atheists. That's certainly true of SciFive, dunno what happened to Arlon.