Tag: mad (page 1 of 18)

8 Myths About Emotions That Are Holding Us Back

Excerpt from huffingtonpost.comAs a society, we don't talk much about emotions. Conversations tend to focus more on what we're doing or what we're thinking. In fact, most people find it easier to start sentences with, "I think..." instead of "I feel...

View Full Article   Read More

Why science is so hard to believe?

In the recent movie “Interstellar,” set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked.

Excerpt from 

There’s a scene in Stanley Kubrick’s comic masterpiece “Dr. Strangelove” in which Jack D. Ripper, an American general who’s gone rogue and ordered a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, unspools his paranoid worldview — and the explanation for why he drinks “only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure grain alcohol” — to Lionel Mandrake, a dizzy-with-anxiety group captain in the Royal Air Force.
Ripper: “Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?”
Mandrake: “Ah, yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes, yes.”Ripper: “Well, do you know what it is?”
Mandrake: “No. No, I don’t know what it is, no.”
Ripper: “Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?” 

The movie came out in 1964, by which time the health benefits of fluoridation had been thoroughly established and anti-fluoridation conspiracy theories could be the stuff of comedy. Yet half a century later, fluoridation continues to incite fear and paranoia. In 2013, citizens in Portland, Ore., one of only a few major American cities that don’t fluoridate, blocked a plan by local officials to do so. Opponents didn’t like the idea of the government adding “chemicals” to their water. They claimed that fluoride could be harmful to human health.

Actually fluoride is a natural mineral that, in the weak concentrations used in public drinking-water systems, hardens tooth enamel and prevents tooth decay — a cheap and safe way to improve dental health for everyone, rich or poor, conscientious brushers or not. That’s the scientific and medical consensus.
To which some people in Portland, echoing anti-fluoridation activists around the world, reply: We don’t believe you.
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge — from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change — faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.
Science doubt has become a pop-culture meme. In the recent movie “Interstellar,” set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked.

The debate about mandated vaccinations has the political world talking. A spike in measles cases nationwide has President Obama, lawmakers and even potential 2016 candidates weighing in on the vaccine controversy. (Pamela Kirkland/The Washington Post)
In a sense this is not surprising. Our lives are permeated by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is wondrous, comfortable and rich in rewards — but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can’t easily analyze.
We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because, the experts point out, there’s no evidence that it isn’t and no reason to believe that altering genes precisely in a lab is more dangerous than altering them wholesale through traditional breeding. But to some people, the very idea of transferring genes between species conjures up mad scientists running amok — and so, two centuries after Mary Shelley wrote “Frankenstein,” they talk about Frankenfood.
The world crackles with real and imaginary hazards, and distinguishing the former from the latter isn’t easy. Should we be afraid that the Ebola virus, which is spread only by direct contact with bodily fluids, will mutate into an airborne super-plague? The scientific consensus says that’s extremely unlikely: No virus has ever been observed to completely change its mode of transmission in humans, and there’s zero evidence that the latest strain of Ebola is any different. But Google “airborne Ebola” and you’ll enter a dystopia where this virus has almost supernatural powers, including the power to kill us all.
In this bewildering world we have to decide what to believe and how to act on that. In principle, that’s what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.”
The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing and sometimes hard to swallow. In the early 17th century, when Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun, he wasn’t just rejecting church doctrine. He was asking people to believe something that defied common sense — because it sure looks like the sun’s going around the Earth, and you can’t feel the Earth spinning. Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later, Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people.
Even when we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions — what researchers call our naive beliefs. A study by Andrew Shtulman of Occidental College showed that even students with an advanced science education had a hitch in their mental gait when asked to affirm or deny that humans are descended from sea animals and that the Earth goes around the sun. Both truths are counterintuitive. The students, even those who correctly marked “true,” were slower to answer those questions than questions about whether humans are descended from tree-dwelling creatures (also true but easier to grasp) and whether the moon goes around the Earth (also true but intuitive).
Shtulman’s research indicates that as we become scientifically literate, we repress our naive beliefs but never eliminate them entirely. They nest in our brains, chirping at us as we try to make sense of the world.
Most of us do that by relying on personal experience and anecdotes, on stories rather than statistics. We might get a prostate-specific antigen test, even though it’s no longer generally recommended, because it caught a close friend’s cancer — and we pay less attention to statistical evidence, painstakingly compiled through multiple studies, showing that the test rarely saves lives but triggers many unnecessary surgeries. Or we hear about a cluster of cancer cases in a town with a hazardous-waste dump, and we assume that pollution caused the cancers. Of course, just because two things happened together doesn’t mean one caused the other, and just because events are clustered doesn’t mean they’re not random. Yet we have trouble digesting randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning.
Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. They, too, are vulnerable to confirmation bias — the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review before publishing them. Once the results are published, if they’re important enough, other scientists will try to reproduce them — and, being congenitally skeptical and competitive, will be very happy to announce that they don’t hold up. Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or an absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.
That provisional quality of science is another thing a lot of people have trouble with. To some climate-change skeptics, for example, the fact that a few scientists in the 1970s were worried (quite reasonably, it seemed at the time) about the possibility of a coming ice age is enough to discredit what is now the consensus of the world’s scientists: The planet’s surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 130 years, and human actions, including the burning of fossil fuels, are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century.
It’s clear that organizations funded in part by the fossil-fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics. The news media gives abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional controversialists and table thumpers. The media would also have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses. Not so. The (boring) truth is that science usually advances incrementally, through the steady accretion of data and insights gathered by many people over many years. So it has with the consensus on climate change. That’s not about to go poof with the next thermometer reading.
But industry PR, however misleading, isn’t enough to explain why so many people reject the scientific consensus on global warming.
The “science communication problem,” as it’s blandly called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe — and why they so often don’t accept the expert consensus. It’s not that they can’t grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to 10. Then he correlated that with the subjects’ science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views — at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that’s because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce their worldviews.
Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more “egalitarian” and “communitarian” mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a “hierarchical” and “individualistic” mind-set respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs; they’re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to — some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.
In the United States, climate change has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this.
Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. “We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school,” says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.”
Meanwhile the Internet makes it easier than ever for science doubters to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions — elite universities, encyclopedias and major news organizations — served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized it, which is a good thing. But along with cable TV, the Web has also made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information with which you already agree.
How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert science skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators at an organization called Compass, says people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. She has personal experience with this. Her father is a climate-change skeptic and gets most of his information on the issue from conservative media. In exasperation she finally confronted him: “Do you believe them or me?” She told him she believes the scientists who research climate change and knows many of them personally. “If you think I’m wrong,” she said, “then you’re telling me that you don’t trust me.” Her father’s stance on the issue softened. But it wasn’t the facts that did it.
If you’re a rationalist, there’s something a little dispiriting about all this. In Kahan’s descriptions of how we decide what to believe, what we decide sometimes sounds almost incidental. Those of us in the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else, he told me. We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community. When I mentioned to Kahan that I fully accept evolution, he said: “Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.”
Maybe — except that evolution is real. Biology is incomprehensible without it. There aren’t really two sides to all these issues. Climate change is happening. Vaccines save lives. Being right does matter — and the science tribe has a long track record of getting things right in the end. Modern society is built on things it got right.
Doubting science also has consequences, as seen in recent weeks with the measles outbreak that began in California. The people who believe that vaccines cause autism — often well educated and affluent, by the way — are undermining “herd immunity” to such diseases as whooping cough and measles. The anti-vaccine movement has been going strong since a prestigious British medical journal, the Lancet, published a study in 1998 linking a common vaccine to autism. The journal later retracted the study, which was thoroughly discredited. But the notion of a vaccine-autism connection has been endorsed by celebrities and reinforced through the usual Internet filters. (Anti-vaccine activist and actress Jenny McCarthy famously said on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” “The University of Google is where I got my degree from.”)
In the climate debate, the consequences of doubt are likely to be global and enduring. Climate-change skeptics in the United States have achieved their fundamental goal of halting legislative action to combat global warming. They haven’t had to win the debate on the merits; they’ve merely had to fog the room enough to keep laws governing greenhouse gas emissions from being enacted.
Some environmental activists want scientists to emerge from their ivory towers and get more involved in the policy battles. Any scientist going that route needs to do so carefully, says Liz Neeley. “That line between science communication and advocacy is very hard to step back from,” she says. In the debate over climate change, the central allegation of the skeptics is that the science saying it’s real and a serious threat is politically tinged, driven by environmental activism and not hard data. That’s not true, and it slanders honest scientists. But the claim becomes more likely to be seen as plausible if scientists go beyond their professional expertise and begin advocating specific policies.
It’s their very detachment, what you might call the cold-bloodedness of science, that makes science the killer app. It’s the way science tells us the truth rather than what we’d like the truth to be. Scientists can be as dogmatic as anyone else — but their dogma is always wilting in the hot glare of new research. In science it’s not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it. For some people, the tribe is more important than the truth; for the best scientists, the truth is more important than the tribe.

View Full Article   Read More

My Higher Self ~ Abundance and Poverty Consciousness


March 11, 2013

by Healing and Love

MoneyA lot of people have been asking me questions regarding their finances, and more specifically, how to improve them.  I asked my higher self for a response.  Hope you enjoy this response from my higher self.

“There is so much fear and misunderstanding about money that even though you think you need money, you may in essence be blocking its natural flow to you.  This may have been caused by your human ego.  Your human ego may have manipulated you through poverty consciousness for a long time, and for many past lifetimes.

This may be the root of all of your issues and problems regarding money.  This poverty consciousness now has to be released to the light for clearing in this ascension lifetime.  This poverty consciousness may have caused you to be very obsessed with money, which then made you greedy and caused you to hoard money at any cost and through any means.  This is a bad vibration to have as it is based on fear;  fear of not having enough money to survive and have your needs paid for.  The human ego poverty consciousness then caused you to believe that there is not enough money for you to live in a comfortable state causing you worry, stress and anxiety (all lower vibrations).

Remember that what you think about, worry about and what you do will be manifested in your reality.  This in turn may have manifested in homelessness, hunger, and other limitations or lacks in your life regarding money and financial security.   Do not worship money or worry that it will run out or worry that you will not have enough to live.  Money is energy.  Also understand that you cannot take your money with you when you leave this life.  God’s abundance is your birthright and God’s supply has no boundaries of all things that are good and plentiful.  This includes money.

If all of this is so, then why do so many people have financial issues?  Why are so many people suffering financially?  Please understand that in this NOW, you are everything that you have ever created in all past lifetimes, as you are a multidimensional being.  This includes the collective consciousness.  This is why you may be experiencing poverty.  This is why the collective consciousness is suffering collectively financially.  Just look at what is happening in your economies around the world.  It has to come up for release; the fear, the worry, the lack.  So to eliminate your poverty thinking and lack thinking and your poverty consciousness thinking, do not vibrate with poverty consciousness.  How do you do this?

You must watch your feelings, your actions, and your words with respect to money.  Do not worry and do not have feelings and thoughts that are fear based with respect to money.  If you vibrate with poverty consciousness energy, there will be financial problems for you.  You have to raise your vibrations regarding money and poverty consciousness to abundance consciousness.  You do this with gratitude and trust.  God’s intention is for you to have abundance consciousness, not poverty consciousness.  Do not worry that you will starve, and do not worry that you will not make the payment on your mortgage or other things that are due to be paid.  Worry is a very lower dimensional vibration and lowers your consciousness level immensely.  Worrying about money is poverty consciousness and will cause you to have poverty.

Release any subconscious memories which tell you money causes you pain or that it is bad or causes you to worry about money.  You must eliminate poverty consciousness and apply abundance consciousness in your life.

Again, please stop worrying about not having enough money (This cannot be stressed enough), and focus on gratitude for the money that you do have.  This is the key and will change your outcome with respect to money.

Gratitude will bring you more of what you are grateful for into your life. Gratitude is about being thankful for everything that you receive in your life, no matter what form it takes, no matter how large or small.  It is an effective tool for showing appreciation to yourself and to others and for opening up your heart.  When you open up your heart, your consciousness rises.  If you embody gratitude and practice this in your life, it is very healing and then you will be able to tap into the flow of abundance consciousness and receive the loving vibrations of that abundance consciousness from God, namely money.  Then things may change for you financially.

Remember you are a Devine Son / Daughter of God and God does not want his children to be poor and to worry about being taken care of.  Have gratitude for all the supporting and loving people you have in your life; have gratitude for your health and for anything that is happening in your life.  Have gratitude for all the beings around you, the plants, the trees, the animals, the birds, everything that has a consciousness (even that ant crossing the driveway).  All are part of One Consciousness and all are here to learn.  Honor ALL life.  Do not be mad that you do not have enough money or that you can’t pay the bills.  Remember that you are manifesting your thoughts and emotions.  If you think you are poor, the universe will give you more of it.  When you are truly able to feel this gratitude in your heart, then it will enable you to receive love in your heart and thus move past a lot of negative emotions, and money will start to flow for you.

For as long as you are in a state of gratitude, then abundance will pour into your lives as will love.  God and the Universe support you and you are always guided.  No matter how bad things appear to you financially, if you can come into your heart and reach a space of gratitude from your heart, then doors will open up, you will be guided and the way will be clear for you to the next step in your life.  But just like you are practicing gratitude, you must also practice trust.  When you ask for something and if it does not come right away, do not get mad or discouraged.  Trust with all your being in full faith that what you asked for will eventually come.   You have to believe and trust and live your life as if it is already there.

Also, in order to receive, you have to give.  When you give you receive a hundred times fold.  If you have no money to give, give with your heart.  Give your time by volunteering.  It is the intent to give that matters.  Again, money is just energy and comes back to you.  When you give away money, it comes back to you.  Do not hoard it.  Trust that you will receive it back.  You will.  It is a change in attitude that is required to have abundance consciousness.

Every time you spend your money, regardless of what you buy, bless it with gratitude for the service it is providing you. Bless it for the food you receive, the utility bills that pay for your utilities, etc…Then just let it go, knowing that it is just a source of energy which will return to you.  This will not prevent the block of the flow of God’s abundance.  Understand and recognize that money is providing a service that you should accept with appreciation and gratitude. Remember that you are responsible for creating your prosperity.

If you have fear and if you have poverty consciousness, you will be poor.  The Universe will give you what you are feeling, thinking, saying and doing.  Open up to abundance consciousness to change your financial situation and have gratitude.  You will be much happier and much richer, financially and spiritually!”


Permission is given to copy and distribute this material, provided the content is copied in its entirety and unaltered, is distributed freely, and this notice and the link below is included.


View Full Article   Read More

YEAH! I’m In.

View Full Article   Read More

mad at you..

mad at you.. No related posts.

View Full Article   Read More

HEAVEN #3881 Enough of Requirements for Love , July 11, 2011

{mainvote} God said:   What is love worth? How big can love grow? True love, love that is not dependent upon the external, love that arises from your heart and alights everywhere, love that depends upon itself and itself alone. It isn...

View Full Article   Read More

Aghartha In The Hollow Earth!

{mainvote} The Inner Earth & Realm of Aghartha Aghartha In The Hollow Earth! By Dr Joshua David Stone The biggest cover-up of all time is the fact that there is a civilization of people living in the center of Earth, whose c...

View Full Article   Read More

Older posts

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
unless otherwise marked.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Up ↑