Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: joywind on June 11, 2013, 05:20 am
-
Darwin taught us 'Survival of the Fittest'
As intellectuals we must refuse to live in a word governed by brain dead neanderthols who deny the very Science that gave them life in the first place.
I dream of a future where Carl Sagan's name is spoken with the same respect that "Jesus" is now spoken of, where Richard Dawkins is considered a paragon for human virtue, not a condom-denying homophobic pedophile in the Vatican.
I dream of a world where people look to Reddit before they open a bible, where Wikipedia is the source of the ten commandments, where the only wars occur in the World of Warcraft.
All my life religious people have tried to force their beliefs down my throat while I just politely stood by without calling their hateful views out.
Well that stops today. Today we fight back.
-
This sounds like a horrific future, and I will not allow it! Lol
JK man, you need someone to fight against anyway, every super hero needs a villain, so lets go, round 1!
-
I wanna add that I am all for science mixed with God, so I may have an unfair advantage in this fight. Just thought you should know that! :)
-
Darwin taught us 'Survival of the Fittest'
As intellectuals we must refuse to live in a word governed by brain dead neanderthols who deny the very Science that gave them life in the first place.
I dream of a future where Carl Sagan's name is spoken with the same respect that "Jesus" is now spoken of, where Richard Dawkins is considered a paragon for human virtue, not a condom-denying homophobic pedophile in the Vatican.
I dream of a world where people look to Reddit before they open a bible, where Wikipedia is the source of the ten commandments, where the only wars occur in the World of Warcraft.
All my life religious people have tried to force their beliefs down my throat while I just politely stood by without calling their hateful views out.
Well that stops today. Today we fight back.
Didn't you spend a a long time in another thread arguing against materialist worldviews and now you want to hold up Richard Dawkins as the paragon of human virtue?
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
Complete nonsense.
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
Complete nonsense.
Haha. This is the sort of argument one would expect from a believer.
Nonsense!
God!
I win!
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
Complete nonsense.
Please elaborate.
-
Joywind, it's always a pleasure to read your posts.
I look forward to them.
Much as i would love to participate in this glorious 'fight back',
I am an inveterate coward .. so .. instead, i'll simply watch from
the sidelines, cheering you on.. and maybe sniggering from time to time.
+1 karma point.
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
Complete nonsense.
Please elaborate.
They are compatible, I have compared the two and found it able. A scientist claiming to be the ultimate purveyor of knowledge is suffering from his own dogma!
-
They are compatible, I have compared the two and found it able.
Please elaborate.
A scientist claiming to be the ultimate purveyor of knowledge is suffering from his own dogma!
This is neither a claim nor a goal of science. Any scientist doing this is likely suffering from something, but it's not an excess of reason.
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
According to Karl Popper, most scientists in actual fact do think this way. They think of a theory and find evidence to validify it, thus causing a confirmation bias. Every scientific theory is only as strong as it's falsification, otherwise it is a pseudoscience.
Marxism and religion are mixed into the same pool because they are absolutist faiths. However the former is a claim to be a scientific theory of society.
Placing science to highly is also dangerous, we must always question the absolute. We wouldn't have gotten the Copernican revolution and evolved from Aristotelian science if we simply blindly believed in the overarching and broad term "science".
Always question and reevaluate the things you perceive of as true.
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
According to Karl Popper, most scientists in actual fact do think this way. They think of a theory and find evidence to validify it, thus causing a confirmation bias. Every scientific theory is only as strong as it's falsification, otherwise it is a pseudoscience.
This is what we call a starting position, and nearly every individual scientific endeavor needs one. Scientists, being human, are not perfectly impartial. Nor is impartiality a requirement of being reasonable. One must be partial at least to facts over nonsense. You have not described anything here that negates the fundamental superiority of the philosophically scientific approach to all other approaches, when discussing/investigating anything that has consequence in the shared medium that exists outside the individual mind.
Marxism and religion are mixed into the same pool because they are absolutist faiths. However the former is a claim to be a scientific theory of society.
Many belief systems *claim* to be scientific, but that is not the same as *being* scientific. Additionally, the proof is always in the application of a theory/belief system. I do not know enough about Marxism in the ideal sense to speak to its scientific nature, but I do know enough about the historical application thereof to understand that the atrocities done in its name (communism) are not the result of a sufficient and widespread demand for reasonable thought and action.
Placing science to highly is also dangerous, we must always question the absolute.
Science as a philosophical approach is not absolutist about anything but the pursuit of truth. Of course we must always question the absolute. This is not the same thing as saying there ARE no absolutes.
We wouldn't have gotten the Copernican revolution and evolved from Aristotelian science if we simply blindly believed in the overarching and broad term "science".
You seem to be really stretching the shit out of the definition of science. Science is a process, not a destination. So yeah, if we "simply" believe in the efficacy of an overarching context of commitment to truth (as in facts) and the fastidious, open to review pursuit of truth, we would have gotten the Copernican revolution and we possibly could have had (e.g.) the Internet 200 years ago.
Always question and reevaluate the things you perceive of as true.
Agreed, with the caveat that we have to balance this within the limits of our attention. If all we do is question and reevaluate what we can already reasonably know to be true, we'll severely hinder our ability to make real, observable progress.
-
YEAH SCIENCE!!!!
-
They are compatible, I have compared the two and found it able.
Please elaborate.
A scientist claiming to be the ultimate purveyor of knowledge is suffering from his own dogma!
This is neither a claim nor a goal of science. Any scientist doing this is likely suffering from something, but it's not an excess of reason.
I have been elaborating throughout this forum. I have found them compatible thru a lifetime of experience, it's a personal experience that I am doing my best to form into words.
It may not be a claim or goal of science but that's what is happening. It's all in the language, its plain and simple to me. For example just claiming to be a scientist pigeonholes you into one category, whether intentional or not!
You "smart" guys hold onto this claim of "reason" as if it was the end of the road on the journey of life. It is not. Look at the word itself, it begs for more questioning, finding reason, I have found reason. The reason for science and the reason for God!
-
+1 SealTeam. We are in the same boat, definitely.
Most likely the biggest reason I am a theist is because of the order of the universe. I respect science greatly because it is a great tool of discovery used to determine the laws that govern everything from neutrinos and quarks to black holes and supernovas (it's also amazing to me how many similarities the smallest and largest things we know about have). I also respect atheists greatly because they use a tool as powerful as science to govern their decisions about religion and preexistence. I strongly feel that those who believe blindly without determining what and why they believe what they do are more like nihilists than they realise; stuck in a fantasy world they will never leave.
Those who seek the truth with all the means at their disposable deserve and have my respect. Now to expound on what I first said, I believe that without these governing laws of science, our existence simply could not be. Even laws as miniscule as electrons revolving around the nucleus of atoms would cause our universe to disappear if they were not set in place. Maybe I'm partial to the subject, I do a lot of computer programming and my idea of a universe without laws is similar to a computer program without functions.
I cannot imagine a law, quantum or non-quantum, that created itself. I think that's what it comes down to, in essence. It doesn't make sense to me in a very similar way that the idea of a law being created by a creator doesn't make sense to many of you. I hate to say agree to disagree, but there is nothing that could ever be said or shown to me (that I can fathom, at least) that could sway me otherwise. I have come to this over years of discovery and free thinking, and it's not something I've been led by anyone to feel.
You can easily say "why add something to the pot that the pot does not need." but really, why not? Does a universe led by rules created by no one –that, as far as we can tell will never stop expanding and contract to create another big bang– make more sense than one created by someone? I think that is a question worth debating through science and known theories, but not something fight over in difference of opinion. If we are to discover, then let us discover.
-
They are compatible, I have compared the two and found it able.
Please elaborate.
A scientist claiming to be the ultimate purveyor of knowledge is suffering from his own dogma!
This is neither a claim nor a goal of science. Any scientist doing this is likely suffering from something, but it's not an excess of reason.
I have been elaborating throughout this forum. I have found them compatible thru a lifetime of experience, it's a personal experience that I am doing my best to form into words.
Then please provide links to those elaborations so that they can be read in the context of this discussion.
It may not be a claim or goal of science but that's what is happening. It's all in the language, its plain and simple to me. For example just claiming to be a scientist pigeonholes you into one category, whether intentional or not!
You continue to make broad claims without substantiating them. This is undisciplined thinking at best.
You "smart" guys hold onto this claim of "reason" as if it was the end of the road on the journey of life. It is not. Look at the word itself, it begs for more questioning, finding reason, I have found reason. The reason for science and the reason for God!
I never made any such claim, you did. Reason is itself a journey, a means rather than an end. The reason for God is simple: man selfishly (egotistically) created a metaphor in which a man (or men) controls all of existence, and then said "this is the truth". Which was and is wholly unreasonable.
-
+1 SealTeam. We are in the same boat, definitely.
Most likely the biggest reason I am a theist is because of the order of the universe. I respect science greatly because it is a great tool of discovery used to determine the laws that govern everything from neutrinos and quarks to black holes and supernovas (it's also amazing to me how many similarities the smallest and largest things we know about have). I also respect atheists greatly because they use a tool as powerful as science to govern their decisions about religion and preexistence. I strongly feel that those who believe blindly without determining what and why they believe what they do are more like nihilists than they realise; stuck in a fantasy world they will never leave.
Those who seek the truth with all the means at their disposable deserve and have my respect. Now to expound on what I first said, I believe that without these governing laws of science, our existence simply could not be. Even laws as miniscule as electrons revolving around the nucleus of atoms would cause our universe to disappear if they were not set in place. Maybe I'm partial to the subject, I do a lot of computer programming and my idea of a universe without laws is similar to a computer program without functions.
I cannot imagine a law, quantum or non-quantum, that created itself. I think that's what it comes down to, in essence. It doesn't make sense to me in a very similar way that the idea of a law being created by a creator doesn't make sense to many of you. I hate to say agree to disagree, but there is nothing that could ever be said or shown to me (that I can fathom, at least) that could sway me otherwise. I have come to this over years of discovery and free thinking, and it's not something I've been led by anyone to feel.
You can easily say "why add something to the pot that the pot does not need." but really, why not? Does a universe led by rules created by no one –that, as far as we can tell will never stop expanding and contract to create another big bang– make more sense than one created by someone? I think that is a question worth debating through science and known theories, but not something fight over in difference of opinion. If we are to discover, then let us discover.
Awesome, thank you very much for participating in this discussion. Have you ever seen "Fractals, the colors of infinity"? I think I got the name right. It had a profound effect on me and my outlook on life. I felt like I discovered the secret of life after watching. Curious to know if you have ever come across it.
-
They are compatible, I have compared the two and found it able.
Please elaborate.
A scientist claiming to be the ultimate purveyor of knowledge is suffering from his own dogma!
This is neither a claim nor a goal of science. Any scientist doing this is likely suffering from something, but it's not an excess of reason.
I have been elaborating throughout this forum. I have found them compatible thru a lifetime of experience, it's a personal experience that I am doing my best to form into words.
Then please provide links to those elaborations so that they can be read in the context of this discussion.
It may not be a claim or goal of science but that's what is happening. It's all in the language, its plain and simple to me. For example just claiming to be a scientist pigeonholes you into one category, whether intentional or not!
You continue to make broad claims without substantiating them. This is undisciplined thinking at best.
You "smart" guys hold onto this claim of "reason" as if it was the end of the road on the journey of life. It is not. Look at the word itself, it begs for more questioning, finding reason, I have found reason. The reason for science and the reason for God!
I never made any such claim, you did. Reason is itself a journey, a means rather than an end. The reason for God is simple: man selfishly (egotistically) created a metaphor in which a man (or men) controls all of existence, and then said "this is the truth". Which was and is wholly unreasonable.
You want elaborations, then you go find them, I will simply point u in the right direction.
Life is what substantiates my claim. Life is God. God is the ultimate force that substantiates me.
You just made one of those claims yourself, explaining what God is! You seem to be a learned individual, how much study of God/religion/faith have you done?
-
+1 SealTeam. We are in the same boat, definitely.
Most likely the biggest reason I am a theist is because of the order of the universe. I respect science greatly because it is a great tool of discovery used to determine the laws that govern everything from neutrinos and quarks to black holes and supernovas (it's also amazing to me how many similarities the smallest and largest things we know about have). I also respect atheists greatly because they use a tool as powerful as science to govern their decisions about religion and preexistence. I strongly feel that those who believe blindly without determining what and why they believe what they do are more like nihilists than they realise; stuck in a fantasy world they will never leave.
Those who seek the truth with all the means at their disposable deserve and have my respect. Now to expound on what I first said, I believe that without these governing laws of science, our existence simply could not be. Even laws as miniscule as electrons revolving around the nucleus of atoms would cause our universe to disappear if they were not set in place. Maybe I'm partial to the subject, I do a lot of computer programming and my idea of a universe without laws is similar to a computer program without functions.
I cannot imagine a law, quantum or non-quantum, that created itself. I think that's what it comes down to, in essence. It doesn't make sense to me in a very similar way that the idea of a law being created by a creator doesn't make sense to many of you. I hate to say agree to disagree, but there is nothing that could ever be said or shown to me (that I can fathom, at least) that could sway me otherwise. I have come to this over years of discovery and free thinking, and it's not something I've been led by anyone to feel.
You can easily say "why add something to the pot that the pot does not need." but really, why not? Does a universe led by rules created by no one –that, as far as we can tell will never stop expanding and contract to create another big bang– make more sense than one created by someone? I think that is a question worth debating through science and known theories, but not something fight over in difference of opinion. If we are to discover, then let us discover.
Awesome, thank you very much for participating in this discussion. Have you ever seen "Fractals, the colors of infinity"? I think I got the name right. It had a profound effect on me and my outlook on life. I felt like I discovered the secret of life after watching. Curious to know if you have ever come across it.
I haven't, I'm going to right now. Will let you know what I think!
-
You want elaborations, then you go find them, I will simply point u in the right direction.
If you have the information available to further explain the apparent nonsense of what you continue to claim, you should really make it available. Playing cute games is neither useful to your argument nor to the discussion. All you're doing is making clarity of thought and understanding more difficult.
Life is what substantiates my claim. Life is God. God is the ultimate force that substantiates me.
Then you're just redefining "God" to fit your belief. Which means that your "God" is custom fit to your mind.
You just made one of those claims yourself, explaining what God is! You seem to be a learned individual, how much study of God/religion/faith have you done?
I would call myself a learning individual, and if you would ever do your own research[1] before making claims you would probably have a better understanding of what I do and don't know about religion. Suffice it to say, I've done a fair amount of study on this subject.
---
[1] for example, this thread: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=159701
-
Try harder. Science and dogma do not mix, as they are mutually incompatible. No truly scientific thinker would ever want to replace idols with more idols, so we can know one has lost their way when they make such claims.
This is exactly what scientists do do. Religious leaders had their idols until Martin Luther broke up the Church with his 99 theses. Similarly, scientists have their own era of idols.
1. Divine Machinery (The Clock Maker)... where everything could be predicted in a mechanical universe.
2. Quantum Calculus... where everything is a statistical (im)probability.
3. Space Holes and Time Warps... where things are too big to be affected by quantum possibilities...
4. String Theory... where everything is perpetuated from a 1-D vibration...
5. Infinite number of theories to come as our knowledge inexorably unravels the (electro)mechanics of the Universe...
6. And then... the secrets that are beyond the known Universe.... (oooh... sexy)
-
+1 SealTeam. We are in the same boat, definitely.
Most likely the biggest reason I am a theist is because of the order of the universe. I respect science greatly because it is a great tool of discovery used to determine the laws that govern everything from neutrinos and quarks to black holes and supernovas (it's also amazing to me how many similarities the smallest and largest things we know about have). I also respect atheists greatly because they use a tool as powerful as science to govern their decisions about religion and preexistence. I strongly feel that those who believe blindly without determining what and why they believe what they do are more like nihilists than they realise; stuck in a fantasy world they will never leave.
Those who seek the truth with all the means at their disposable deserve and have my respect. Now to expound on what I first said, I believe that without these governing laws of science, our existence simply could not be. Even laws as miniscule as electrons revolving around the nucleus of atoms would cause our universe to disappear if they were not set in place. Maybe I'm partial to the subject, I do a lot of computer programming and my idea of a universe without laws is similar to a computer program without functions.
I cannot imagine a law, quantum or non-quantum, that created itself. I think that's what it comes down to, in essence. It doesn't make sense to me in a very similar way that the idea of a law being created by a creator doesn't make sense to many of you. I hate to say agree to disagree, but there is nothing that could ever be said or shown to me (that I can fathom, at least) that could sway me otherwise. I have come to this over years of discovery and free thinking, and it's not something I've been led by anyone to feel.
You can easily say "why add something to the pot that the pot does not need." but really, why not? Does a universe led by rules created by no one –that, as far as we can tell will never stop expanding and contract to create another big bang– make more sense than one created by someone? I think that is a question worth debating through science and known theories, but not something fight over in difference of opinion. If we are to discover, then let us discover.
Awesome, thank you very much for participating in this discussion. Have you ever seen "Fractals, the colors of infinity"? I think I got the name right. It had a profound effect on me and my outlook on life. I felt like I discovered the secret of life after watching. Curious to know if you have ever come across it.
I haven't, I'm going to right now. Will let you know what I think!
Awesome!
-
You want elaborations, then you go find them, I will simply point u in the right direction.
If you have the information available to further explain the apparent nonsense of what you continue to claim, you should really make it available. Playing cute games is neither useful to your argument nor to the discussion. All you're doing is making clarity of thought and understanding more difficult.
Life is what substantiates my claim. Life is God. God is the ultimate force that substantiates me.
Then you're just redefining "God" to fit your belief. Which means that your "God" is custom fit to your mind.
You just made one of those claims yourself, explaining what God is! You seem to be a learned individual, how much study of God/religion/faith have you done?
I would call myself a learning individual, and if you would ever do your own research[1] before making claims you would probably have a better understanding of what I do and don't know about religion. Suffice it to say, I've done a fair amount of study on this subject.
---
[1] for example, this thread: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=159701
You need to do some more studying, because you missed an enormous part, God!
-
"Fractals:the colour of infinity" now there's a title that tells you everything you need to know about the film. I haven't seen it but I'm pretty sure its wrong on many levels.
Aldous Huxley believed that only the intellectual elite should be allowed to take LSD, as the common folk would just derive a cod-mysticism and confirmation for their half formed superstions from the experience. Reading this thread I'm inclined to agree.
-
"Fractals:the colour of infinity" now there's a title that tells you everything you need to know about the film. I haven't seen it but I'm pretty sure its wrong on many levels.
Aldous Huxley believed that only the intellectual elite should be allowed to take LSD, as the common folk would just derive a cod-mysticism and confirmation for their half formed superstions from the experience. Reading this thread I'm inclined to agree.
You have not seen the video, yet you are commenting on it, Wow!
-
Yep. There are so many foolish and insipid books, films and philosophy available to us these days one has to have some kind of filter system. Luckily that one has a title that makes it clear its full of full on tie dye 'woo' saving me the bother of watching it.
I know what you're saying, that I should give ideas a chance and not dismiss them out of hand, but if a man comes up to me and explains he is Napoleon and has a quantum energy vortex in his underpants, I feel happy to write him off as a crazy, without listening to his explanation.
Similarly "fractals, the colour of infinity" is such a red flag you could walk along waving it in front of a steam powered car, to alert pedestrians that some
Pseudoscience was chugging its way towards them.
-
Yep. There are so many foolish and insipid books, films and philosophy available to us these days one has to have some kind of filter system. Luckily that one has a title that makes it clear its full of full on tie dye 'woo' saving me the bother of watching it.
I know what you're saying, that I should give ideas a chance and not dismiss them out of hand, but if a man comes up to me and explains he is Napoleon and has a quantum energy vortex in his underpants, I feel happy to write him off as a crazy, without listening to his explanation.
Similarly "fractals, the colour of infinity" is such a red flag you could walk along waving it in front of a steam powered car, to alert pedestrians that some
Pseudoscience was chugging its way towards them.
The only foolish philosophy is commenting on things you have no idea about!
-
(Wipes egg off his face) yes I think you could be right....that does look like an interesting film. Maybe I should find out what films actually are before I start ripping the piss out of them based on the title!
I googled it thinking "I'll show these fuckers" then I saw Arthur C Clarke and the word mandlebrot and thought "shit. Maybe it is a real film after all".
My apologys :-)
-
I'm just about to watch "the revisionaries" which is a fairly sympathetic documentary about the people who want intelligent design taught on equal footing with evolution.
-
The only foolish philosophy is commenting on things you have no idea about!
And since you CLEARLY have no idea about anything of the things you are commenting on.....
I suppose the foolish philosophy is God's Philosophy though so it's okay?
-
The only foolish philosophy is commenting on things you have no idea about!
And since you CLEARLY have no idea about anything of the things you are commenting on.....
I suppose the foolish philosophy is God's Philosophy though so it's okay?
I love you brethren. Try to find some positivity instead of negativity, it will change your life!