Behaviour report by the London school of economics

Mr.Brown_4

Malcolm. wrote: »

Aliens may have dinonapped the loch ness monster for his (or her) own safety.

Well. Lol. For all your high fallutin premise of this, and theory of that, with a placebo on the side, and probably a college education - you don't even know Nessie is a she. And that my friend - is a fact.

Although, er, she probably doesn't exist. Still want to go there one day, just to walk in her fake footsteps.

ninky_2

Malcolm. wrote: »

I laughed reading about the group that tried to overdose on homeopathy (to prove a point). Fitted my SoH.

That said, I think rescue remedy works, I'm not sure whether that's homepathy.

no it's alcohol. i daringly once snuck some into the islamic republic of iran.:beer:

ninky_2

Malcolm. wrote: »

You talk about reason as it's some fixed absolute. In practice I think you'll find what is considered reason varies depending upon who you talk to.

reason is a process rather than a position. as such it is not fixed. the rationalist will always be open to counter arguments. however, they will dismiss the irrational and mumbo jumbo presented as fact.

Malcolm.

ninky wrote: »

no it's alcohol. i daringly once snuck some into the islamic republic of iran.:beer:

That would explain the relaxation effects.

As for lir's (rhetorical ) question on bottles per unit, next time in Germany, I'll put their pub breathalyzers to good use.

At £5 per rescue remedy bottle I suspect it will be an expensive night.

treliac

Malcolm. wrote: »

That said, I think rescue remedy works, I'm not sure whether that's homepathy.

lostinrates wrote: »

I never works for me, but it tastes nice. I now consider it a socially acceptable and rather sweet miniature tipple flask.

ninky wrote: »

no it's alcohol.

And I'll have a large one. Hic!

Malcolm.

ninky wrote: »

reason is a process rather than a position. as such it is not fixed. the rationalist will always be open to counter arguments. however, they will dismiss the irrational and mumbo jumbo presented as fact.

A reasonable position is still a position. Positions can therefore be categorised into those involving reason.

O.K. the process of reason varies from person to person, agreed

System

Malcolm. wrote: »

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

What about discounting the possibility of small little creatures that steal your ears in the night, let's be honest there's as much evidence supporting the existence of those as there is any "god"

ninky_2

it's all meant to be based on flowers. you can actually get other bach remedies other than rescue. again i think the brandy base helps....

http://www.bachcentre.com/centre/faq.htm

"How does the depression of Sweet Chestnut compare to that of Mustard? And how does it compare to the hopelessness of Gorse and Gentian's lack of faith?

Gentian is for a mild despondency after a setback. For example, you might have applied for a job and failed to get it. You say 'I might as well give up' - but eventually, with a sigh, you fill in another application form for a different job.:beer:

Gorse is when you feel very pessimistic. Something has gone wrong and you decide to give up because there is no point trying again. To use the same example, your respones to not getting a job is to say, 'that's it, I give up' and tear up the other application form.:beer:

Sweet Chestnut is different altogether. Dr Bach listed Gentian and Gorse in his 'Uncertainty' group, because in both instances the problem is not genuine despair but rather a lack of faith. If Gentian and Gorse were more certain of their success they would not be depressed at all. The Sweet Chestnut state comes when all avenues really are closed off.":beer:

Cleaver

Malcolm. wrote: »

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that a god doesn't exist. As an example, I could state that there are invisible, pink elephants with no mass flying around my lounge. Whilst you could never fully prove that these things don't exist, there's a lot of evidence around to suggest that they don't.

Malcolm. wrote: »

I think everyone could do with a guide in life, whether it's parents, friends, loved ones or written words in a book.

Can't disagree with that one.

michaels

Paraphrasing Douglas Adams if you could prove god existed then there would no longer be faith in which case the core of belief would disappear hence it can never be possible to prove the existence of faith based deity - or something like that involving a Babefish

OK - Google is my friend:
'Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.'