The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I don't particularly object to someone saying this is one possible explanation. I just don't like scientists who claim to know the truth about anything. Science is about facts, religion is about truth; if they want to discover truth, they need to join the seminary
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
I think you are wrong, especially on a theoretical level. Cognitive psychology uses the scientific method and rejects introspection.
Rejects is too strong. Discourages would be better, but there are some things about the mind that we can only know through introspection.
I don't think the purpose is to debunk it. It's to provide a more likely possibility.
Ok. That's a much more reasonable position. Yes, a burning bush would be quite exceptional, but the actual account in Exodus is very detailed. There are accounts of visions and a whole variety of spiritual phenomena that are not well understood.
Faith and worship makes you believe that a bush is talking to you
One manifestation of both are dreams and visions. Moses on Mt. Sinai is just one of many, many examples of such. The question for Moses is that he we given certain things from God, such as his staff which doesn't fit the interpretation of this professor. So his case doesn't really fit dreams and visions, it seems to be much more special then that.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Originally posted by snoopy369
I'd go with the opinion of the chemist (Krill) over something you googled. Studies you don't understand may or may not be valid, and may or may not indicate what your googled source says they indicate...
First, the initial claim that the plant contains compounds that are psychoactive comes from a professor of cognitive psychology. That should be enough right there, unless you can prove otherwise that he is wrong. Second, Krill only said that they "may" have different effects. Finally, I've already posted a link proving that they do not have different effects. But don't let facts get in the way of your silly beliefs.
Regardless, while I wouldn't be surprised to find that Acacia had psychoactive properties, the presence of a psychoactive property does very little to suggest what Moses may or may not have done (a figure who may or may not have been mythological himself). It establishes it as a possibility, but suggesting it is 'the answer' instead of suggesting it is 'a possibility' is very bad science indeed... that's more like religion
What it does is provide evidence for the most likely possibility? No one ever claimed proof as you can't do that.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by snoopy369
I don't particularly object to someone saying this is one possible explanation. I just don't like scientists who claim to know the truth about anything. Science is about facts, religion is about truth; if they want to discover truth, they need to join the seminary
Dude, this is a social scientist. He's researching history. You seem to be confused about the nature of that pursuit.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Jon Miller
It is bad science because he was seeking to show the 'truth' about Moses. He then assumed that the possibilities that some favored were wrong, and which then made his possibility right.
I don't understand your objection. He doesn't think A is likely, but thinks B is, so he does a study to find evidence that B is more likely. How is that bad science?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Rejects is too strong. Discourages would be better, but there are some things about the mind that we can only know through introspection.
You said that there is no conflict, and I think there is a conflict. Although some cognitive psychologist may believe that introspection is a way to understand the mind they do not rely on that for their work. That's why they are cognitive psycologists.
Ok. That's a much more reasonable position. Yes, a burning bush would be quite exceptional, but the actual account in Exodus is very detailed. There are accounts of visions and a whole variety of spiritual phenomena that are not well understood.
Like what?
One manifestation of both are dreams and visions.
Really? I didn't know that. Have you had these visions and dreams?
Moses on Mt. Sinai is just one of many, many examples of such. The question for Moses is that he we given certain things from God, such as his staff which doesn't fit the interpretation of this professor. So his case doesn't really fit dreams and visions, it seems to be much more special then that.
I can see how someone having halucinations might think that God just gave them a stick that happens to be in their hand at the time that they've come off the trip. Have you ever taken halucinagens? I have.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Well that is OK then, they aren't real scientists anyways.
JM
(that fact that this is considered acceptable, when it wouldn't be in hard science fields, shows the difference between social 'science' and real science)
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Originally posted by Jon Miller
Oh? He is a social scientist?
Well that is OK then, they aren't real scientists anyways.
JM
(that fact that this is considered acceptable, when it wouldn't be in hard science fields, shows the difference between social 'science' and real science)
They are the only kind of scientists that study social sciences, or at least the only scientists that are qualified to speak as experts on the subjects.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
so if he was on this stuff for 10 commandments, what was he on for the curses of the Egyptians so that they let the Israelis go and that passover came into existance
the drug for the Red Sea split is the most potent ever... if he did this with one of the great lakes , and FDA by some strange chance got him they would be shocked but wold do nothing as they would not have a procedure in place to describe the scope of the drug inducing effects, EPA however would execute him for abuse of environment and destroying fish stock in the lake
Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"
They are the only kind of scientists that study social sciences, or at least the only scientists that are qualified to speak as experts on the subjects.
The statements and claims in the OP take away his right to claim to be a real scientist.
That other people listen to him shows the sad state of affairs in the social sciences.
JM
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
The OP was making what is effectively a 'real science' claim - that a particular chemical may have had a particular effect on a person's body such as to cause a certain result. You can't very reasonably claim on the one hand that he is a real scientist as opposed to the religious people ("cognitive psychology") but then claim that he doesn't have to follow scientific standards on the other hand...
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
I know the fundamentals of how the physical sciences is done, and he broke one of the fundamentals. That is, the reasoning that an explanation is correct should not be entirely based on assuming that other explanations are incorrect.
JM
Jon Miller- I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Originally posted by snoopy369
The OP was making what is effectively a 'real science' claim - that a particular chemical may have had a particular effect on a person's body such as to cause a certain result. You can't very reasonably claim on the one hand that he is a real scientist as opposed to the religious people ("cognitive psychology") but then claim that he doesn't have to follow scientific standards on the other hand...
"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.
I don't know what the hell you 2 are on about. I don't think you have the basics down to understand this.
He said that it's very "probable" that Moses was under the influence of narcotics. His study evidently makes the case for that.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Tweet
Comment