I think I have figured out how to judge someone's intelligence at a glance. This may be offensive to some, but i truly believe there are two major major factors that are in many peoples lives that if they do without, they are more intelligent (in my view). Not with numbers, literature, science etc. that is all different, but just with an understanding of our world and what is true or not.
So i think these two things are religion and news. Well, i will explain the religion first; I just think the very thought that someone could believe JUST ONE story from the bible is absolutely mind boggling. Just mind boggling. I can accept people who use religion as a guide line to live their lives, and if that is how they get their morales then so be it. But if someone actually literally believes some of the stories in the bible, then i know for a fact they cant think for themselves at all, and probably refuse to look into it further and research it.
The other is news, but not news news! What i mean by this is that generalised 6:00 pm news is an absolute abomination, and im sure many americans use TL so my example for this is FOX NEWS. This channel twists and bends news so much it makes me sick. Im not sure how to really define what news would be adequate, so i just have a link
the young turks is a news show. If you watch ANY video, you can really see the genuine interest in bringing you the FACTUAL news. Im not really sure how to say it, but if you watch, but more importantly if you BELIEVE everything you see in the generalised news, then i think the intelligence for that person is lower
I'm guessing your young and this is something you can just casually throw out right now but in a few years come back to this blog and you'll see how incredibly useless this blog is and your point of view. The thing that you are saying right now actually is "I won't have anything to do with people that are religious and watch mainstream media because they are not the type of people I want to talk to.",which would be fine in itself if you would leave it at that. It has nothing to do with the intelligence and I don't see how you can say that you are smart based off how well you can label or (miss)judge someones intelligence.It actually tells more about how you think very highly of yourself and are a condescending asshole really.
On April 17 2012 16:18 TheKefka wrote: I'm guessing your young and this is something you can just casually throw out right now but in a few years come back to this blog and you'll see how incredibly useless this blog is and your point of view. The thing that you are saying right now actually is "I won't have anything to do with people that are religious and watch mainstream media because they are not the type of people I want to talk to." It has nothing to do with the intelligence and I don't see how you can say that you are smart based off how well you can label or (miss)judge someones intelligence.It actually tells more about how you think very highly of yourself and are a condescending asshole really.
Yeah! that is it really. I do view these people as less intelligent, but i guess i might understand more on the issue later in life
Btw I'm not saying your a bad person really.Looking at your other blog I see your 18 and most of teenagers,including how I was not too long ago,are condescending,opinionated assholes so whatever.
I read a reserach article on "An idiot doesn't know that he's an idiot". Basically what they did was that they made a bunch of people do your average IQ test. They then asked "How do you think that you did in this test?". Almost everyone answered "Above average", even the people who did really really bad.
I'm almost certain this is satirical, but as a fellow flaming hand dude I feel a need to address your points here.
People fundamentally have different views on life. People of faith and conservatives are not inherently less intelligent than atheists, agnostics, and liberals.
Some people fundamentally believe the government should have a smaller hand in the economy. They're afraid of the Federal government, and prefer their services to be run by their local state government, which represents them and not people from other regions. Some people believe that the United States should be more aggressive with our army overseas. Others may personally be afraid of LGBT people and abortion. Being a Republican doesn't make you dumb.
Also, many people have long and difficult jobs. Perhaps someone works as a doctor and doesn't have time to do research on the internet. He relies on the evening news to present him with information quickly and entertainingly, and is too busy doing his work to do anything else.
In any case, if you close your mind to other viewpoints, you're basically the same as a conservative guy who only watches Fox news. It's important to understand other opinions-- until you understand your opponent's position, you will never truly understand your own.
Thing is that most people are of average intelligence. Probably you too. Once you realize this you will be on the path of enlightenment.
But yeah this is basically a:"Anyone who doesn't agree with mt views is an idiot" which is idiotic itself.
Dunno why people are so full of themselves on the internet. Kinda makes me sad how so many people consider themselves enlightened and yet they are so judgmental on a lot of stuff ...
On April 17 2012 16:41 corpuscle wrote: if this isn't a terribly executed attempt at satire I will lose all faith in humanity
I'm feeling the same way. I really am. Well, not really. I'll still have faith in humanity. I just wont' be terribly pleased about it.
I basically trusted other humans to like run the sewer system and stuff but if this blog is serious I will vote to turn it over to robots because we have no business being in charge of anything.
On April 17 2012 16:41 corpuscle wrote: if this isn't a terribly executed attempt at satire I will lose all faith in humanity
I'm feeling the same way. I really am. Well, not really. I'll still have faith in humanity. I just wont' be terribly pleased about it.
I basically trusted other humans to like run the sewer system and stuff but if this blog is serious I will vote to turn it over to robots because we have no business being in charge of anything.
lol i see some people think i am a bit arrogant, but i just think the two things i highlighted are honestly fake, and i dont think anyone can dispute that. If someone believes either of those two with the full extent of their mind, i just think it is less intelligent .......
and at the post above me, i listed it is not intelligence in that way! It is the other type of intelligence, whatever the heck it may be
if you think u are smart that just means you either haven't realized how much you don't know, haven't had enough life experience, or both
also it is impossible to have "knowledge" or opinions that you believe to be incorrect. therefore you could be wrong about a great number of things and you wouldn't know it
No person who thinks they are smart is anywhere near as smart as they really are. I've also never met someone who's as good at reading people as they think they are.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
On April 17 2012 16:57 firehand101 wrote: lol i see some people think i am a bit arrogant, but i just think the two things i highlighted are honestly fake, and i dont think anyone can dispute that. If someone believes either of those two with the full extent of their mind, i just think it is less intelligent .......
and at the post above me, i listed it is not intelligence in that way! It is the other type of intelligence, whatever the heck it may be
The evidence of your intelligence is just seeping from this post.
I think I have figured out how to judge someone's intelligence at a glance.
Neither of said "measures of intelligence" can be judged as a glance. Maybe you know something I don't but it's pretty hard for me to tell if they absorb FOX News from a glance. I could maybe pick out a few christians here or there but it would mostly be based on luck.
On April 17 2012 18:33 zalz wrote: You are smart when people call you smart.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
qft.
Often those we call smart view don't view themselves as such due to knowing and accepting that there is an almost infinite amount of things they still don't know. This can be what drives them to keep on learning and questioning their own knowledge, when most people would be content to stagnate in their intelligence (never re-examining something that they think they already know).
On April 17 2012 18:33 zalz wrote: You are smart when people call you smart.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
Saying that "people" in general are smart enough to determine who deseverve to be called smart is very unsmart lol.
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will. That's the problem with most people, when they call someone smart it means "i like you" or "i acknowlege my own inferiority". However if they have ressentiment they will always try to deny it and instead they will try to despict the person as evil. Ultimately only dominant people can give a decent insight about who is really smart.
My grand mother always thought i was clever as a children but when i started to challenge her religious beliefs i became "weird" because i had "dangerous ideas" haha.
I used to believe the religion judgement, but then I realised how retarded and narrow-minded that view is. I'm an atheist.
I used to have similar views on The Young Turks, but then I realised how they are a democratic party base version of Fox News. I'm slightly on the liberal side of things on domestic policy, and probably slightly conservative on foreign policy.
You're being just as ideologically judgmental as those you are scorning.
On April 17 2012 18:33 zalz wrote: You are smart when people call you smart.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
Saying that "people" in general are smart enough to determine who deseverve to be called smart is very unsmart lol.
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will. That's the problem with most people, when they call someone smart it means "i like you" or "i acknowlege my own inferiority". However if they have ressentiment they will always try to deny it and instead they will try to despict the person as evil. Ultimately only dominant people can give a decent insight about who is really smart.
My grand mother always thought i was clever as a children but when i started to challenge her religious beliefs i became "weird" because i had "dangerous ideas" haha.
What?! Is this what people really think? Being intelligent does not make you oppressive, you concluded otherwise because of your experience with your grandma?
I think the problem facing a lot of you is you simply have little experience with any sort of community which generally attracts those of 'intelligent' dispositions. You might be slightly above average intelligence, or not, but you sit there amongst people who aren't generally involved in intellectual discussion and you somehow conclude from that, that you are intelligent, that you are better than them.
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will.
Actually, being smart is "Having or showing a quick-witted intelligence."
Plenty of religious people fit that definition. I daresay there are a number of people watching Fox News who also fit that definition.
EDIT Adwodon, I agree entirely. I used to think I was a clever chap until I joined a community online where nearly everyone participating in the Serious Discussion forum was more logical, more intelligent, and much better at debate than me. The ability to defeat thirteen year olds in debates at school and online does not make you smart, nor does defeating those who are not trained to think logically.
On April 17 2012 18:33 zalz wrote: You are smart when people call you smart.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
Saying that "people" in general are smart enough to determine who deseverve to be called smart is very unsmart lol.
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will. That's the problem with most people, when they call someone smart it means "i like you" or "i acknowlege my own inferiority". However if they have ressentiment they will always try to deny it and instead they will try to despict the person as evil. Ultimately only dominant people can give a decent insight about who is really smart.
My grand mother always thought i was clever as a children but when i started to challenge her religious beliefs i became "weird" because i had "dangerous ideas" haha.
What?! Is this what people really think? Being intelligent does not make you oppressive, you concluded otherwise because of your experience with your grandma?
You can be dominant without being perceived as oppressive... Having higher status doesn't mean that you have to behave like a slavedriver lol.
People can be religious and still be completely intelligent. They will however toss aside all that intelligence and rational thinking concerning issues where religion is involved.
On April 17 2012 19:11 .Sic. wrote: thirdly, people will be more intelligent if they don't try to express all of their thoughts
yes, very valid point here. Ive always seen ignorance as bliss. But then again, ignorance is not bliss if you already know about it and are then trying to ignore it, then it is anything but bliss!
This blog is lulzworthy. Op is a clever, clever kid.
Boblion : your definition of "being smart" does not fare well with situations where it is smart to be submissive, and seems way too close to the definition of "strenght".
Fck man didn't know that entrepreneurs and politicians are weightlifters. Oh and it is only smart to be submissive when you are trying to hide your real intentions lol.
On April 17 2012 21:57 Boblion wrote: Fck man didn't know that entrepreneurs and politicians are weightlifters. Oh and it is only smart to be submissive when you are trying to hide your real intentions lol.
On April 17 2012 18:33 zalz wrote: You are smart when people call you smart.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
Saying that "people" in general are smart enough to determine who deseverve to be called smart is very unsmart lol.
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will. That's the problem with most people, when they call someone smart it means "i like you" or "i acknowlege my own inferiority". However if they have ressentiment they will always try to deny it and instead they will try to despict the person as evil. Ultimately only dominant people can give a decent insight about who is really smart.
My grand mother always thought i was clever as a children but when i started to challenge her religious beliefs i became "weird" because i had "dangerous ideas" haha.
What?! Is this what people really think? Being intelligent does not make you oppressive, you concluded otherwise because of your experience with your grandma?
You can be dominant without being perceived as oppressive... Having higher status doesn't mean that you have to behave like a slavedriver lol.
Oh that's what you meant, then why did you say this?
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will.
Unless you think that imposing your will on someone couldn't possibly be a form of oppression.
I still don't understand what that has to do with intelligence, plenty of ignorant fools are 'dominant' personalities, and plenty of extremely smart people are introverts, they are not intertwined, a smart person doesn't necessarily want to control the people around him. A smart sociopath would, but its not the smart part of that which gives him those desires, it may well facilitate it, or it might not, he could be terrible with people, sometimes smart people have problems with social interaction too.
What does status have to do with intelligence? Are physicists powerful people? A guy like David Beckham certainly has a lot of status, but he hardly seems bright.
It seems like you've taken a very narrow, situational view of one application of intelligence, and decided that's the truest definition.
On April 17 2012 22:05 Boblion wrote: Yea, "i like to be submissive because i like it" seems like a good way of life to me lol.
It's a choice of life, many people choose to be submissive because it fits them well. A good salary, little ethical concerns and a loving boss are enough for many people. Wether it's smart or not is debatable, because it can arguably be very good for them.
Politicians are also a bad example, because their ability to get to the top doesn't rely on their intelligence only. Else Attali isn't as smart as Sarkozy because Sarkozy is the president, which is, again, debatable. It would also imply that Mitterand was smarter then Chirac when he was president, but became dumber when Chirac came to power, it makes no sense.
The power of a politician does not come from his intelligence, but from his character, his collaborators and his tools. Wether you were born as a friend of the Rotschild family or climbed the social ladder isn't up to you, and it plays a large role in terms of power.
Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not.
On April 17 2012 22:28 PetitCrabe wrote: Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not.
Actually, theyoungturks isn't that great either. Honest people engage their opponents' strongest arguments, not the weakest ones.
IMO, it's really hard to judge how smart or dumb people are. I guess if someone consistently comes up with great ideas or finds solutions to problems you thought about and couldn't solve then they are probably smart. But just because they believe some dumb stuff doesn't mean they're dumb.
On April 17 2012 22:28 PetitCrabe wrote: Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not.
On April 17 2012 18:33 zalz wrote: You are smart when people call you smart.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
Saying that "people" in general are smart enough to determine who deseverve to be called smart is very unsmart lol.
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will. That's the problem with most people, when they call someone smart it means "i like you" or "i acknowlege my own inferiority". However if they have ressentiment they will always try to deny it and instead they will try to despict the person as evil. Ultimately only dominant people can give a decent insight about who is really smart.
My grand mother always thought i was clever as a children but when i started to challenge her religious beliefs i became "weird" because i had "dangerous ideas" haha.
What?! Is this what people really think? Being intelligent does not make you oppressive, you concluded otherwise because of your experience with your grandma?
You can be dominant without being perceived as oppressive... Having higher status doesn't mean that you have to behave like a slavedriver lol.
Oh that's what you meant, then why did you say this?
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will.
Unless you think that imposing your will on someone couldn't possibly be a form of oppression.
Dude YOU are the one narrowing my views. I don't know why you are still thinking that imposing your will, ideas, opinions equate physical domination and oppression. For example Politicians nowadays usually don't force people to agree with them (otherwise they would be dictators boo hoo) so they are using other means, they are seducing people with clever rhetoric and by manipulating their feelings.
Being dominant is not about fitting the "alpha male stereotype" lol. Women can be dominant too...
On April 17 2012 22:22 adwodon wrote: ... Feel free to go around in circles though.
You are the one babbling because you were offended when i said that being called smart by dumb people doesn't mean shit. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is king. But if you are called smart by someone who is winning at life then you should take it as compliment.
On April 17 2012 22:05 Boblion wrote: Yea, "i like to be submissive because i like it" seems like a good way of life to me lol.
It's a choice of life, many people choose to be submissive because it fits them well. A good salary, little ethical concerns and a loving boss are enough for many people. Wether it's smart or not is debatable, because it can arguably be very good for them.
Politicians are also a bad example, because their ability to get to the top doesn't rely on their intelligence only. Else Attali isn't as smart as Sarkozy because Sarkozy is the president, which is, again, debatable. It would also imply that Mitterand was smarter then Chirac when he was president, but became dumber when Chirac came to power, it makes no sense.
LOL i'm always amazed by your posts. All i'm saying is that you will find smarter people among politicians than idk... among garbage men ? No offense to garbage men, i still like them. Boo hoo i'm so politically incorrect. Also you have no idea about what being submissive means. Having a good job, being well paid and having little ethical concerns is actually closer of the opposite lol. I will take an obvious example. When a woman get beat by her husband and she doesn't try to call the cops and to divorce she is being submissive. You understand ? Being submissive is bad.
On April 17 2012 22:24 Kukaracha wrote: The power of a politician does not come from his intelligence, but from his character, his collaborators and his tools. Wether you were born as a friend of the Rotschild family or climbed the social ladder isn't up to you, and it plays a large role in terms of power.
Good to see that you are finally admitting that we are not born equals. Now you will maybe admit that we don't get the same education ? Dude i'm using the same concepts than your favourite leftist pseudothinkers, we are discussing Bourdieu material for fuck sake, why are you even trying to argue. Being intelligent doesn't mean shit if you are still a bum. You have to achieve things ( social position, inventions, whatever ). You are not born smart, you just have a potential.
No, that woman is being submissive to her husband. There is no "absolute" submission, you always submit to somebody or something. You're submissive in comparison to someone else's attitude. You can have a good job, have a nice salary and still be your boss' bitch. You're thus submissive to your boss, and everyone above him. You could also be submissive to your wife, simply because you feel it makes your life easier. Hierarchy doesn't go up like a ladder, it's more complex than that when you leave the small context of a certain well-defined group.
This hypothetical man obeys to two persons for evey decision in his life, and yet he can be happy. You can arguably say that he's smart to chose what's best for him.
Let's get things straight, because you seem to use a very peculiar definition of "smart".
smart (smärt) adj. smart·er, smart·est 1. a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent. b. Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation. c. Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk. 2. Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace. 3. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others: a smart negotiator. 4. Fashionable; elegant: a smart suit; a smart restaurant; the smart set. See Synonyms at fashionable. 5. a. Capable of making adjustments that resemble human decisions, especially in response to changing circumstances: smart missiles. b. Manufactured to regulate the amount of light transmitted in response to varying light conditions or to an electronic sensor or control unit: smart windows. 6. New England & Southern U.S. Accomplished; talented: He's a right smart ball player.
And no Bourdieu is not my god, don't get so mad! I simply follow his Distinction as it's a very interesting analysis of the artistic phenomenon, but that's about it. Of course, I agree that our education differs in many points and that we are not all born equals, although nurture is what composes the biggest part of our being. And yes, my posts are amazing, because I'm an amazing person.
The ability to identify the most basic of untruths (FOX News and the Bible) is elementary at best. YOU are not smart for doing so. Them being stupid != You being smart.
Hey guys look how smart I am I think people who don't believe in evolution are dumb! Wow. Fucking grats. If smart was level 80 you just thought about buying the game. Don't talk about how easy the last boss is just yet.
On April 18 2012 02:10 Kukaracha wrote: No, that woman is being submissive to her husband. There is no "absolute" submission, you always submit to somebody or something. You're submissive in comparison to someone else's attitude. You can have a good job, have a nice salary and still be your boss' bitch. You're thus submissive to your boss, and everyone above him. You could also be submissive to your wife, simply because you feel it makes your life easier. Hierarchy doesn't go up like a ladder, it's more complex than that when you leave the small context of a certain well-defined group.
This hypothetical man obeys to two persons for evey decision in his life, and yet he can be happy. You can arguably say that he's smart to chose what's best for him.
Lol i just used it as an obvious example. I have never talked about an "absolute" wtf. It is so annoying to discuss with you. You are always trying to put words in my mouth. Also let's be clear once for all. If you have a "good job" with a "nice salary" it means that you are enjoying it and it is good for you which is completly different than taking a beating and suffering ! Now if your boss is a complete jerk it means that your job isn't "good" anymore and you should do something about it. If you stay and you become the bitch then yea you are submissive. It is a matter of CHOICES and of WILL. I can't believe you don't understand stuff like this. You are always trying to make things more complicated than they really are.
On April 18 2012 02:10 Kukaracha wrote: Let's get things straight, because you seem to use a very peculiar definition of "smart".
smart (smärt) adj. smart·er, smart·est 1. a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent. b. Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation. c. Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk. 2. Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace. 3. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others: a smart negotiator. 4. Fashionable; elegant: a smart suit; a smart restaurant; the smart set. See Synonyms at fashionable. 5. a. Capable of making adjustments that resemble human decisions, especially in response to changing circumstances: smart missiles. b. Manufactured to regulate the amount of light transmitted in response to varying light conditions or to an electronic sensor or control unit: smart windows. 6. New England & Southern U.S. Accomplished; talented: He's a right smart ball player.
Words for words ! Smart is being clever ! Smart is being witty ! Smart is being bright ! But what is being clever ? What is being witty ? What is being bright ?
On April 18 2012 02:10 Kukaracha wrote: And no Bourdieu is not my god, don't get so mad! I simply follow his Distinction as it's a very interesting analysis of the artistic phenomenon, but that's about it. Of course, I agree that our education differs in many points and that we are not all born equals, although nurture is what composes the biggest part of our being. And yes, my posts are amazing, because I'm an amazing person.
I'm just laughing at your "arguments" sigh. All you have done is trying to derail the thread and putting words in my mouth.
The problem is that these things you mention are necessary but not sufficient conditions for intelligence.
Most of what we think of as "intelligence" is in fact just "education."
edit: I would also encourage you to read the Bible and not dismiss it just because some people take it literally. It is a great work of literature (some parts are better than others, it's not really a coherent book. Even within books parts were composed across very long span of time.)
On April 17 2012 18:33 zalz wrote: You are smart when people call you smart.
That is why so many people declare themselves smart. They crave the urge to be called smart, but nobody gives it to them, so they bestow it upon themselves.
Calling yourself smart is one of the stupidest things a person can do.
Saying that "people" in general are smart enough to determine who deseverve to be called smart is very unsmart lol.
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will. That's the problem with most people, when they call someone smart it means "i like you" or "i acknowlege my own inferiority". However if they have ressentiment they will always try to deny it and instead they will try to despict the person as evil. Ultimately only dominant people can give a decent insight about who is really smart.
My grand mother always thought i was clever as a children but when i started to challenge her religious beliefs i became "weird" because i had "dangerous ideas" haha.
What?! Is this what people really think? Being intelligent does not make you oppressive, you concluded otherwise because of your experience with your grandma?
You can be dominant without being perceived as oppressive... Having higher status doesn't mean that you have to behave like a slavedriver lol.
Oh that's what you meant, then why did you say this?
To be smart means that you are able to dominate other people and to impose your ideas, opinions and will.
Unless you think that imposing your will on someone couldn't possibly be a form of oppression.
Dude YOU are the one narrowing my views. I don't know why you are still thinking that imposing your will, ideas, opinions equate physical domination and oppression. For example Politicians nowadays usually don't force people to agree with them (otherwise they would be dictators boo hoo) so they are using other means, they are seducing people with clever rhetoric and by manipulating their feelings.
Being dominant is not about fitting the "alpha male stereotype" lol. Women can be dominant too...
Why does oppression have to be physical? Your choice of words is poor, if you mean influence, say influence, if you mean impose say impose, they have very different meanings and connotations that you don't seem to be understanding.
A politician doesn't impose his will on people, he tries his best to influence them, or pander to them. Even within the world of politics itself, being so bold as to try and impose yourself on people will get you shut out of the game pretty fast. I think that's what you're trying to say, but you're using all the wrong words.
English is a complicated language though, and maybe not your first so your meaning could be getting lost in translation.
Adwodon, Boblion is talking nietzsche at you. That's why he says things like "ressentiment." Don't read too much into the dictionary definition of words like "domination."
Even within the world of politics itself, being so bold as to try and impose yourself on people will get you shut out of the game pretty fast.
Yes, so if you acted in this way, the will to power would not be fulfilled - you would not be able to dominate them. Domination here is context dependent.
The tension between the will to power and oppression is of course troubling. I'm not a nietzsche scholar so I can't really comment on how to resolve this tension on his terms.
(I'm not necessarily arguing this position just trying to clarify)
On April 18 2012 02:10 Kukaracha wrote: And no Bourdieu is not my god, don't get so mad! I simply follow his Distinction as it's a very interesting analysis of the artistic phenomenon, but that's about it. Of course, I agree that our education differs in many points and that we are not all born equals, although nurture is what composes the biggest part of our being. And yes, my posts are amazing, because I'm an amazing person.
On April 18 2012 03:35 Chill wrote: If you're so smart why were you banned from the strategy forum? ololol
lol
btw op you know there are a shitton of accomplished scientists who are incredibly strong christians? I know of 4 incredibly accomplished men (one an award winning geneticist) from my church alone who are some of the strongest christians I know. so that kinda fucks up your first point
and your second point is that fox news is sensationalist. news flash: you're not the only one aware
most of us are aware of the things you mentioned, except one thing valued MORE than intelligence in this world is HUMILITY. so get over yourself.
This blog does come out quite arrogant, but I can follow OP's intent here.
To me, religion is the same as believing in santa claus or ghosts. I would wager, that believing in religious scriptures shows signs of inability to think things through. I would in the same arrogant view as OP find people believing in religion at least misguided if not directly less intelligent. There are of course great thinkers within the scholastic tradition as well, researching religion and believing in some deity. I wouldn't call these people stupid. They obviously have great analytic skills and vast mental ressources to dig into. But in general, I would say that religious people are less inclined to be intelligent. Same goes for FOX news viewers, which I believe has already been proven, if "level of education" among the viewer base can be considered a meaningful way of measuring.
I don't think OP is as far off, as most readers here seem to think.
Mark Twain once said: "Never argue with a stupid person. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
I believe in the Bible, but I try and make sure I can see both sides, and look at it morally and logically. I don't find it hard to believe in the Bible but that's because I've been raised a Christian, and now I still like my choice. Even IF God doesn't exist, knowing that some superior deity is watching you, protecting you and helps you is sure more comforting than being on my own.
On April 17 2012 16:04 Jerubaal wrote: Here's the tl;dr:
'I'm an ideologue and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.'
This is the complete opposite of intellectualism.
Really quoted for truth and should have been /thread.
I strongly do not believe in religion stories but still I respect people that do as long as they try not to convince other of their pov.
For me respect is when you don't try to convince or disregard others in a subject that is 100% personal and with no known "truth", rejecting other views is contrary to being smart (works both ways).
On April 17 2012 16:04 Jerubaal wrote: Here's the tl;dr:
'I'm an ideologue and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.'
This is the complete opposite of intellectualism.
Really quoted for truth and should have been /thread.
I strongly do not believe in religion stories but still I respect people that do as long as they try not to convince other of their pov.
For me respect is when you don't try to convince or disregard others in a subject that is 100% personal and with no known "truth", rejecting other views is contrary to being smart (works both ways).
You respect people by never challenging their beliefs?
What a strange world we live in when allowing those we know to dwell in unfounded superstition is considered to be a sign of respect.
You cannot demand that someone believes as you do, but there is nothing respectful about never challenging a person's beliefs. If their beliefs are well reasoned they will hold and become stronger for it, if they are build without reason they deserve to fall.
Is demanding reason from religion considered converting?
Rejecting other views is not contrary to being smart. The essence of stupidity is the lack of reason that motivates the rejection or acceptance of a belief, regardless of its whether it is religious or pseudo-scientific.
This demand that religion must be respected, and the tribute of this respect must be paid in silence on the matter, is but the last, though the most poisonous, attempt to strangle healthy dialogue.
First you couldn't speak on pain of death. Now you can't speak on pain of breaking social conduct. What we must do is speak, and in that regard, religion and its cries for respect continue to be a thorn in the side of rational discourse.
Young atheist liberal found to be excellent Dunning-Kruger case study, news at 11.
If you watch ANY video, you can really see the genuine interest in bringing you the FACTUAL news. Im not really sure how to say it, but if you watch, but more importantly if you BELIEVE everything you see in the generalised news, then i think the intelligence for that person is lower
Read: if you believe the ~general~ news, you're stupid, but the special snowflake news I listen to is 100% factual!
What drove you to post this on TL? I suppose if you like getting insulted, this was a perfectly logical plan -- though I'm not sure why someone would like that. And if you did honestly think you'd be praised for it, possibly because the userbase does lean progressive...well, in the words of the esteemed philosopher Antoine Dodson, "you are really dumb, for real."
On another note, are you an Australian law student?
You cannot demand that someone believes as you do, but there is nothing respectful about never challenging a person's beliefs. If their beliefs are well reasoned they will hold and become stronger for it, if they are build without reason they deserve to fall.
as a religious person, I agree, but this is an argument for a different thread imo
Parts of the Bible are true and rooted in actual historical events that took place. I don't know what you mean by "believing one story," but some events have been corroborated by the study of other texts (e.g. historical annals, administrative tablets, etc.) and archaeological records.
It's best to treat the Bible like Homer's Odyssey imo; going too far in either direction (it's all true/it's all false) is unproductive and can taint discussion. The Bible is just one of the latest amongst many texts in a line of an extremely ancient Near Eastern literary tradition and builds upon motifs and ideas that have stuck around for several thousands of years.
Congratulations on your intelligence. You found out fox news isn't news and you hold a boldly ignorant stance on the correlation between religion and intellect.
On April 18 2012 06:27 babylon wrote: Parts of the Bible are true and rooted in actual historical events that took place. I don't know what you mean by "believing one story," but some events have been corroborated by the study of other texts (e.g. historical annals, administrative tablets, etc.) and archaeological records.
It's best to treat the Bible like Homer's Odyssey imo; going too far in either direction (it's all true/it's all false) is unproductive and can taint discussion. The Bible is just one of the latest amongst many texts in a line of an extremely ancient Near Eastern literary tradition and builds upon motifs and ideas that have stuck around for several thousands of years.
With major events like Exodus being entirely fabricated: thus by extension destroying Judaism, and the two faiths that were copied from Judaism: Christianity and Islam.
It has some historical value, but so do census reports, but I doubt you suggest we reduce the Bible's importance to the equivalence of a random well documented piece of historical evidence.
But things like Exodus are complete fabrications. Then we have other peculiarities, like Jesus' being born in a stable near Bethlahem because of a census practice which orders people to return to their ancestral home (never in Roman history has this been practice).
Finally, should we use the Bible as a foundation for morality? No, we should not, even if some of its lessons are good. If the lessons are good, then we can follow them without divine mandate.
People need to learn that morality does not come from decree, it comes from compassion for your fellow man and a foundation of reason which aims to make morality based on the well being of people.
Even using the Bible as a moral handbook is sending the wrong message to children. Morality does not, and never should, be derived from a mandate from heaven.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius has far better lessons on morality. He even adresses the point, what should we do if the gods don't exist? What does that mean for morality? So, even as a guidebook, the Bible should serve little purpose in our society. It teaches the wrong way to learn about morality.
On April 17 2012 22:28 PetitCrabe wrote: Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not.
Then we have other peculiarities, like Jesus' being born in a stable near Bethlahem because of a census practice which orders people to return to their ancestral home (never in Roman history has this been practice).
Christ was born in a stable near Bethlehem because they were on the run, according to the gospel narratives. Nothing to do with some nonexistent story of some nonexistent practice.
Then we have other peculiarities, like Jesus' being born in a stable near Bethlahem because of a census practice which orders people to return to their ancestral home (never in Roman history has this been practice).
Christ was born in a stable near Bethlehem because they were on the run, according to the gospel narratives. Nothing to do with some nonexistent story of some nonexistent practice.
I wonder
Luke 2:1-20
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
But you know, maybe census is a metaphor for ninja assasins.
On April 18 2012 06:27 babylon wrote: Parts of the Bible are true and rooted in actual historical events that took place. I don't know what you mean by "believing one story," but some events have been corroborated by the study of other texts (e.g. historical annals, administrative tablets, etc.) and archaeological records.
It's best to treat the Bible like Homer's Odyssey imo; going too far in either direction (it's all true/it's all false) is unproductive and can taint discussion. The Bible is just one of the latest amongst many texts in a line of an extremely ancient Near Eastern literary tradition and builds upon motifs and ideas that have stuck around for several thousands of years.
With major events like Exodus being entirely fabricated: thus by extension destroying Judaism, and the two faiths that were copied from Judaism: Christianity and Islam.
It has some historical value, but so do census reports, but I doubt you suggest we reduce the Bible's importance to the equivalence of a random well documented piece of historical evidence.
But things like Exodus are complete fabrications. Then we have other peculiarities, like Jesus' being born in a stable near Bethlahem because of a census practice which orders people to return to their ancestral home (never in Roman history has this been practice).
Census reports taken together with other administrative docs are far more useful in reconstructing the past than the Bible will probably ever be, but the Bible and other ancient works of literature should never be thrown away lightly. If you're acquainted with ANE studies, you'd know that a.) though it's led scholars and still leads them on many a wild good chase, the Bible has already made valuable contributions to the field, and b.) scholars need to work with what materials they have. Ever heard of the story about the drunk under the lamppost? That's the story of ANE studies.
You read the Bible with a critical eye but with an open mind, as you do all potential historical sources and ancient literature.
So i think these two things are religion and news. Well, i will explain the religion first; I just think the very thought that someone could believe JUST ONE story from the bible is absolutely mind boggling. Just mind boggling. I can accept people who use religion as a guide line to live their lives, and if that is how they get their morales then so be it. But if someone actually literally believes some of the stories in the bible, then i know for a fact they cant think for themselves at all, and probably refuse to look into it further and research it.
The Bible is pretty accurate when it comes to the history of the Jewish people up to the New Testament, and a pretty accurate account of early Christian Church history... so you're not as smart as you think you are if you think that belief in JUST ONE story is mind boggling, sorry.
the young turks is a news show. If you watch ANY video, you can really see the genuine interest in bringing you the FACTUAL news. Im not really sure how to say it, but if you watch, but more importantly if you BELIEVE everything you see in the generalised news, then i think the intelligence for that person is lower
The Young Turks is a place for Cenk Uygur and people who think like him to tell each other how right they are and how wrong and bad the other side is, like all opinion shows. It's just as simplistic and bad as Hannity (the show, although its host is equally bad).
But things like Exodus are complete fabrications.
Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that.
Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that.
Exodus is completely and utterly false from start to end.
There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians, and there certainly isn't any evidence of a society surviving in the desert for 40 years.
You can study Bible history all you want, but that won't make signs of a human society appear in the sands of the Sinai desert.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that the exodus ever took place. In fact, the very absence of historical evidence suggests that it never took place. You can't wander around the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace, it isn't possible.
The only way to defend the complete lack of evidence is by subscribing to the notion of a trickster god that places dinosaur bones and removes any traces of Jews living in the Sinai, just to 'test' peoples faith.
Or get into that ridiuclous number mumbo jumbo where certain numbers are just numbers but other numbers are metaphors and other words are metaphors for numbers, all the way till they eventually stumble across some combination of words and numbers that does make their view work.
So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
I guess the OP is voting for Obama this election. (Yes, I know it says he's from Aus)
So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
Fantastic news! I'll alert the media and the Nobel organization. I will not endeavor to prove or disprove anything mentioned in the Bible; I couldn't care less if the whole thing was false or true. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Sinai deserts have not been excavated wholly and completely. 60,000km^(2) is a lot of land to dig up so that one could find evidence of life from ~4000-5000+ years ago.
So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
Fantastic news! I'll alert the media and the Nobel organization. I will not endeavor to prove or disprove anything mentioned in the Bible; I couldn't care less if the whole thing was false or true. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Sinai deserts have not been excavated wholly and completely. 60,000km^(2) is a lot of land to dig up so that one could find evidence of life from ~4000-5000+ years ago.
zalz, speaking in absolutes about ancient history is kind of narrow-minded. Near Eastern history literally needs to be rewritten every five years. For a long time, the kingdom of Yamkhad in N. Syria was entirely unknown, because it simply didn't leave behind any written material. This is kinda problematic because it was probably the most powerful kingdom at the time, but we pretty much only know about it through references from texts in more peripheral areas. Another example would be the Sumerians, who we didn't know existed for a while; when ANE studies first started, it was thought that "writing" only went as far back as the Akkadians. Obviously untrue, (Sumerians invented writing for the record) which we discovered when we found whole cuneiform tablets we couldn't read (and it also helped to notice that cuneiform is ill-suited to Akkadian, which is a Semitic language). Elamite history to this day is still badly known, and there are like seventeen different theories about how the "Indo-Europeans" got to Anatolia, all supported by archaeology or linguistic paleontology or both, and everyone keeps arguing about it. -__-
Ancient history's flooded with blank pages that are only filled when we find actual written evidence about events. For instance, can we actually find archaeological (as opposed to textual) evidence for the forced deportations that were carried out by the Hittites in Anatolia (or by the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians in the Middle East proper, and yes, Nebuchadnezzar did in fact conquer and deport the population of Jerusalem)? Lol, let me tell you, it's very, very hard. What does one "look" for in the archaeological record in that case if entire communities are simply uprooted and settled in a new area and assimilate? We only know about these because they're mentioned in historical annals or royal inscriptions or found in royal art. I can give many more examples of events/existences of peoples mentioned in texts that can't be found in the archaeological record and that are only mentioned in a handful of texts (or even just one text!), but I'll stop here.
I'm not saying Exodus is true or untrue; I'm not even up-to-date on the debate, since I have very little interest in the topic (tbh, I have not read the Bible, what I know about it is what l've encountered through references, and I'm not overly fond of Biblical interpretation/studies since they tend to take the Bible as the text to study when it should be looked at within the entire Near Eastern context, which a lot of them don't do), but you need to be very, very careful about dismissing texts right off even if what they say is improbable. There are truths in the Bible, there are very clear fabrications in it, and then there are some things that maybe did happen but are exaggerated, etc., and it's just difficult to separate one from the other sometimes.
On April 17 2012 22:28 PetitCrabe wrote: Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not.
On April 17 2012 22:28 PetitCrabe wrote: Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not.
One of my favourite effects.
On April 17 2012 22:33 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
On April 17 2012 16:48 CecilSunkure wrote:
On April 17 2012 16:32 Vod.kaholic wrote:
On April 17 2012 16:08 Jerubaal wrote:
On April 17 2012 16:07 Vod.kaholic wrote: Can we judge people on there spelling to?
too*
Yes.
I sea what you did their.
Edit to fix spelling.
There*
I also think this is a good idea.
i don't think your getting it
You're*
How do you know were not the ones who don't get it?
*We're.
Quit trolling, his grammar is probably better then yours.
On April 17 2012 16:04 Jerubaal wrote: Here's the tl;dr:
'I'm an ideologue and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.'
This is the complete opposite of intellectualism.
Really quoted for truth and should have been /thread.
I strongly do not believe in religion stories but still I respect people that do as long as they try not to convince other of their pov.
For me respect is when you don't try to convince or disregard others in a subject that is 100% personal and with no known "truth", rejecting other views is contrary to being smart (works both ways).
You respect people by never challenging their beliefs?
What a strange world we live in when allowing those we know to dwell in unfounded superstition is considered to be a sign of respect.
You cannot demand that someone believes as you do, but there is nothing respectful about never challenging a person's beliefs. If their beliefs are well reasoned they will hold and become stronger for it, if they are build without reason they deserve to fall.
Is demanding reason from religion considered converting?
Rejecting other views is not contrary to being smart. The essence of stupidity is the lack of reason that motivates the rejection or acceptance of a belief, regardless of its whether it is religious or pseudo-scientific.
This demand that religion must be respected, and the tribute of this respect must be paid in silence on the matter, is but the last, though the most poisonous, attempt to strangle healthy dialogue.
First you couldn't speak on pain of death. Now you can't speak on pain of breaking social conduct. What we must do is speak, and in that regard, religion and its cries for respect continue to be a thorn in the side of rational discourse.
Don't you think that Preaching and your challenges are the same thing then?
When the beliefs are grounded so fundamentally different, you aren't listening to their reasons because you cannot understand them. You are searching for a more logical reason while their reasons aren't necessary so. It doesn't make them more stupid than you are in any way.
I agree that with other things like view points, you could argue and have a nice debate. But with religion? you simply cannot. Similar to love: In Hong Kong, a lot of girls only look for guys who has a house and a car. If you ever talk about love to them, they won't get it because they live in a materalised world. How could a lover explain it to them when the feeling differs from everyone?
On April 18 2012 03:35 Chill wrote: If you're so smart why were you banned from the strategy forum? ololol
I think that this statement sums it up right here.
This got me cracking up... hard.
I don't have any religion, and the only news I watch/read are the headlines that appear on ninemsn.com.au, you know, news that makes you laugh a lil inside when your reading by yourself.
You get to know one's intelligence within the first 5 minutes of talking to them. How well one speaks (the words they use) is usually a good sign of their level of education.
On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote: So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
There's more to the abrahamic faiths than this. You don't understand what religion is if you think this "undermines" them. Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical.
On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote: So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
There's more to the abrahamic faiths than this. You don't understand what religion is if you think this "undermines" them. Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical.
Nobody cares? Nobody?
I would argue that the non-existence of a major prophet like Moses could reasonably be called "flawed". Moses is a pretty big deal in Christianity and Islam as well. Especially Islam which argues that its book is without flaw. Making references to a non-existent character as fact does not seem flawless.
But did I suggest that religion will fall apart after this? No. It undermines faith, but it does not destroy faith. If people always forced themselves to be honest and reasonable, religion would be gone by tommorow.
I argue that people should use reason and logic to build their worldview, I never said that is the only way that people build their worldview. The result is a lot of flawed views, religion being the biggest and most obviously false.
People can believe a lot of things. Even if you found a magic videotape that shows everything in the Bible is false, people would still believe. So yes, it undermines faith, but that isn't the same as making it go away.
Don't you think that Preaching and your challenges are the same thing then?
When the beliefs are grounded so fundamentally different, you aren't listening to their reasons because you cannot understand them. You are searching for a more logical reason while their reasons aren't necessary so. It doesn't make them more stupid than you are in any way.
I agree that with other things like view points, you could argue and have a nice debate. But with religion? you simply cannot. Similar to love: In Hong Kong, a lot of girls only look for guys who has a house and a car. If you ever talk about love to them, they won't get it because they live in a materalised world. How could a lover explain it to them when the feeling differs from everyone?
Preaching and challenging a persons view is not the same. Preaching is just projecting your worldview out into the ether without dialogue. To challenge is to engage in dialogue.
Fundamental beliefs are the beliefs we hold true for no other reason than that we consider them true. Perhaps that is because they are mandated from an invisible source like religion, or perhaps they are simply so forced into society over the ages that they are nearly impossible to challenge.
But they can be challenged and they can be deconstructed. Take for example women's rights. Some 200 years ago there would be very few people that would considering raping your wife a bad thing, it was your right as a husband to receive sex. Now, skip 200 years, and how much further are we? In the west, women are nearing absolute equality.
Now, I don't know about women in Hong Kong, but I will assume you are right about them placing material value above emotional feelings.
So how could a lover (someone that places emotional feelings above the rest) explain his side of the argument to a materialist (someone that favors material posesions over emotional feelings).
First, you would have to wonder what is more important. Is love truly the most important thing? Or have you only been told that numerous times? Think of all the reasons why love is more important, then try your best to disprove those reasons, truly give it your all.
Now you do the same for materialism. Try to remove your bias and think of all the reasons why these women would want materials over love. Proceed to try and undermine every reason you managed to discover.
Now you have a deeper understanding of the two positions and you can try to see which one is truly better. Perhaps you will change your mind, but if you don't, you will be better equiped to tear down this position in the future.
The only problem is emotions run very deep. Uprooting a persons faith can take a very long time because their views are anchored in so deep and are also a part of their identity. Emotion runs even deeper.
You can make a rational argument for love, but whether that will cultivate a genuine feeling of love in a person? I think a transformation like that is something that just takes a generation.
Fantastic news! I'll alert the media and the Nobel organization. I will not endeavor to prove or disprove anything mentioned in the Bible; I couldn't care less if the whole thing was false or true. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Sinai deserts have not been excavated wholly and completely. 60,000km^(2) is a lot of land to dig up so that one could find evidence of life from ~4000-5000+ years ago.
You don't think Jewish historians would love to find evidence? That they didn't try? But even they have given up and said that it probably didn't happen.
But the majority of christians don't even read the Bible, so I make no illusions that disproving a story they never even read will do much to shake up a faith that gives them a very practical sense of community every Sunday morning.
On April 18 2012 16:24 sam!zdat wrote: I should clarify. I don't really give a shit about religion. I'm only interested in the texts.
What do you mean by only being interested in the texts?
As cultural heritage? As moral guidance?
The Bible and other books should never dissapear from human knowledge, simply because they have had such a profound impact on human history, regardless of whether they are true or not, we can't disagree with that.
But as moral guidance I would argue that they don't work.
So, could you clarify for me: in what way are you interested in the texts?
I'm interested in them as part of the history of ideas... which is really the only way to regard these texts with respect (I think most contemporary christians do great violence to the book they thump)
You realize there isn't a coherent moral philosophy in the collection of texts we call "the Bible," right? It's not clear to me how you can dismiss an entire corpus that was composed over a period of like a thousand years as a single entity.
If your point is that you can't directly import specific moral instructions across several millennia of human history, then that's both obvious and uninteresting. These texts contain some very deep thought and insight that is worth more consideration than I believe you have given them. Do you understand the context in the history of Greek philosophy that Paul, for example, was working in? (Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, etc...?) Even though I think that monotheism was an enormous dead-end in philosophy, these people were very smart and it does you very little good to dismiss the texts based on a contemporary religious tradition which really has nothing at all to do with them. The ideas in these texts are real.
And you can learn a great many important moral lessons from the Gospels in particular; if you've read these texts I don't see how you can possibly disagree.
Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that.
Exodus is completely and utterly false from start to end.
There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians, and there certainly isn't any evidence of a society surviving in the desert for 40 years.
You can study Bible history all you want, but that won't make signs of a human society appear in the sands of the Sinai desert.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that the exodus ever took place. In fact, the very absence of historical evidence suggests that it never took place. You can't wander around the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace, it isn't possible.
The only way to defend the complete lack of evidence is by subscribing to the notion of a trickster god that places dinosaur bones and removes any traces of Jews living in the Sinai, just to 'test' peoples faith.
Or get into that ridiuclous number mumbo jumbo where certain numbers are just numbers but other numbers are metaphors and other words are metaphors for numbers, all the way till they eventually stumble across some combination of words and numbers that does make their view work.
So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is actually one proof in stone called stone of Merneptah (1207 bc) who describes a people "who had been shut in." and was released. And in the end its mentioned "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not". Though these texts have a different concept of truth, and must not be taken as literary but read trough a cultural code during that time that greatly exaggerate. Though Israel is here understood as a people, and not a country, it shows that the people of Israel had been in and was known by Egypt.
im not going to get into this in much depth because what i have to say has already been said quite a few times, but the fact that your writing in a spoiler so you dont have to see people disagreeing with you kinda shows how closed minded you are. youre worse than fox.
Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that.
Exodus is completely and utterly false from start to end.
There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians, and there certainly isn't any evidence of a society surviving in the desert for 40 years.
You can study Bible history all you want, but that won't make signs of a human society appear in the sands of the Sinai desert.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that the exodus ever took place. In fact, the very absence of historical evidence suggests that it never took place. You can't wander around the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace, it isn't possible.
The only way to defend the complete lack of evidence is by subscribing to the notion of a trickster god that places dinosaur bones and removes any traces of Jews living in the Sinai, just to 'test' peoples faith.
Or get into that ridiuclous number mumbo jumbo where certain numbers are just numbers but other numbers are metaphors and other words are metaphors for numbers, all the way till they eventually stumble across some combination of words and numbers that does make their view work.
So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is actually one proof in stone called stone of Merneptah (1207 bc) who describes a people "who had been shut in." and was released. And in the end its mentioned "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not". Though these texts have a different concept of truth, and must not be taken as literary but read trough a cultural code during that time that greatly exaggerate. Though Israel is here understood as a people, and not a country, it shows that the people of Israel had been in and was known by Egypt.
Absence of evidence is most certainly the evidence of absence in some cases.
If you claim there is a planet in a very specific point in space, but nobody can find any trace of its gravity, the absence of that evidence suggests the absence of the planet.
You can't travel through a desert for 40 years with an entire civilization and not leave a trace, it can't be done. Not one person lost a sandal? Not one person dropped a urn? Not one child ran off to sketch on a rock? None of that? What? Did Moses order them to avoid leaving any evidence on punishment of death?
Because if he did, they would also have to have eaten the body and used the bones after, because you won't find any of those either, which is peculiar when you consider the claimed size of this migration, anywhere from 600.000 people to 3 million.
Forty years. An entire generation died out in those desert, but they didn't leave any trace?
Not to mention that for some reason, the Egyptians didn't feel the need to mention a small event like more than half of the people living in their country getting up and moving.
"Hey Pharaoh, we just lost 3 million slaves, want us to write that down?"
"Nah, its no biggie. Why would we record a small event like half of the population migrating and the loss of our entire slave work force. Please, go back to recording crop yields, let the trivial stuff remain off the records."
"Maybe I'll just write it in my diary."
"You will do no such thing. Not a soul in Egypt will ever mention this! Got it?"
In this particular case, yes, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. It is impossible for this many people to spend 40 years in a desert and not leave a trace.
"Maybe they didn't look for it in the right place, its a big desert."
When even Jewish historians start to give up, we should start to realize that it probably didn't happen.
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote: Lol i just used it as an obvious example. I have never talked about an "absolute" wtf. It is so annoying to discuss with you. You are always trying to put words in my mouth. Also let's be clear once for all. If you have a "good job" with a "nice salary" it means that you are enjoying it and it is good for you which is completly different than taking a beating and suffering ! Now if your boss is a complete jerk it means that your job isn't "good" anymore and you should do something about it. If you stay and you become the bitch then yea you are submissive. It is a matter of CHOICES and of WILL. I can't believe you don't understand stuff like this. You are always trying to make things more complicated than they really are.
And your example is wrong, because you're arbitrarily dividing the world between those who submit and those who don't while almost everyone eventually submits to someone or something to different degrees. Maybe that wife took a beating, but maybe she's Rihanna and she's not really sad about her life overall. I mean, maybe you're a hippie and you believe that you would easily stand up to your boss and give up a 100k salary just because you're "not his bitch", but many people will gladly overcome humiliation to maintain their situation, at all levels. Of course it's a matter of choice, a matter of will not so much, you can simply not mind that much to be under the orders of someone. I don't see your point there (is there one anyway?).
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote: Words for words ! Smart is being clever ! Smart is being witty ! Smart is being bright ! But what is being clever ? What is being witty ? What is being bright ?
Since "smart" is a synonym of "intelligent, you have your own answer :
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote: Being intelligent doesn't mean shit if you are still a bum.
If you say that a bum can be "intelligent" but not "smart", then you're obviously using very different definitions for both while it is commonly aknowledged that they have similar definitions. In short, you're defending a poorly defined "concept" you once thought about that makes "smart" a synonym of "power".
Some say that knowledge is power, but to quote a clever girl, "power is power".
On April 18 2012 19:42 zalz wrote: Absence of evidence is most certainly the evidence of absence in some cases.
It is not. Applying a scientific method to a metaphysical question is the dumbest thing pseudo-sienctific atheists do.
Science is a rigorous method to understand the universe. It loses its very meaning if you use to determine things such as what is right and what is wrong, because you lose the essential rigorous aspect.
PS : I'm an atheist myself so don't start one of those stupid "neenerneener" contests with me.
On April 18 2012 19:42 zalz wrote: Absence of evidence is most certainly the evidence of absence in some cases.
It is not. Applying a scientific method to a metaphysical question is the dumbest thing pseudo-sienctific atheists do.
Science is a rigorous method to understand the universe. It loses its very meaning if you use to determine things such as what is right and what is wrong, because you lose the essential rigorous aspect.
PS : I'm an atheist myself so don't start one of those stupid "neenerneener" contests with me.
I disregarded the following sentences because many christians consider the Bible to be an allegorical and metaphorical book. Questioning the reality of the Bible stories does not question the christian faith. The dogmas have changed through time, and theologists have come out with different forms of exegesis through the year. But of course, it's not something you would know if you're not actually curious about what the Bible really is.
By the way, Zalz started with a scientific claim and followed with pseudo-history, so I don't really see the connection there.
On April 18 2012 20:58 zany_001 wrote: zalz, would you say that your entire philosophy is founded on reason and logic? And that any philosophy or religion which is not is false?
It doesn't have to be false, but I believe it leads to the correct conclusion more often.
For example, take the moral question of murder.
I would say murder is wrong.
Most people would also say that murder is wrong.
In this case, the conclusion is the same, but the thought proces that comes before is different. Most people would argue that murder is wrong, because it is wrong, an inheritance from centuries (if not millenia) of this belief being imposed.
Now a lot of people get anxious when you begin to discuss murder and whether it might be good, or perhaps in the middle, but people shouldn't feel this way. If a belief is correct then it should hold up to a critical observation.
I believe that if you force yourself to take a hard look at the things you believe and force them to adhere to reason and logic, you will be richer for it. People shouldn't be afraid of submitting
But for the most part, yes, my outlook on life is mostly based on being incredibly honest with yourself and forcing all yourself to be able to give a logical and well reasoned defense of any view you hold.
Does that mean I manage to do it all the time? I wish. I can still catch myself making mistakes on a daily basis, but I find there is a certain intellectual gratification when you don't take the easy route and say "it is because it is" but really try to force yourself to defend your positions with reason, and if you can't, adapt them.
It is not. Applying a scientific method to a metaphysical question is the dumbest thing pseudo-sienctific atheists do.
Science is a rigorous method to understand the universe. It loses its very meaning if you use to determine things such as what is right and what is wrong, because you lose the essential rigorous aspect.
PS : I'm an atheist myself so don't start one of those stupid "neenerneener" contests with me.
There is nothing metaphysical about the claim of 3 million Jews migrating through a very specific desert for 40 years.
Just because people act dumb, doesn't mean they are dumb. In other words you can never conclude one's intelligence by just watching them / hearing them talk.
On April 18 2012 21:36 zalz wrote: There is nothing metaphysical about the claim of 3 million Jews migrating through a very specific desert for 40 years.
How come? It can mean that they were many, it could represent hard times, it could be an emphatical version of what happened. It could be many things, and this is why it has been studied by passionate scholars for centuries now.
The existence of God is the metaphysical claim, the Bible is the metaphor that supports it. It's not hard to understand.
On April 18 2012 22:05 Kukaracha wrote: How come? It can mean that they were many, it could represent hard times, it could be an emphatical version of what happened. It could be many things, and this is why it has been studied by passionate scholars for centuries now.
It could be many things, but I already adressed this earlier.
This does not change that Exodus never took place in the way that most people would consider an event taking place. You know, by actually taking place.
Sure, there are plenty of people who insist that it is all a big number mumbo jumbo and if you read it the proper way, it spells the cheat code for Contra, but even if that was the case, Exodus itself would still not have happened.
Does Exodus contain an incredibly complex code that we cannot decypher. Perhaps.
Did Exodus ever happen in the physical sense? No, it did not. In this case, the absence of evidence serves as evidence of absence. A human society cannot travel the Sinai desert for 40 years and leave no trace. It is simply not possible.
The only way that it could be possible was if there was divine intervention which sought to remove any evidence from the desert. Aka, a trickster god.
It is possible to believe that, after all, there are people who believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the earth to test our faith, or placed by a conspiracy of scientists, but sooner or later you have to start wondering if you aren't just bending the truth to continually seeking the gaps.
The existence of God is the metaphysical claim, the Bible is the metaphor that supports it. It's not hard to understand.
Yes.
A claim to the existence of god is a metaphyiscal claim.
The claim that there were 3 million Jews wandering the Sinai desert for 40 years is not a metaphysical claim.
So applying science to the story of Exodus is not wrong, because Exodus isn't exclusively a metaphysical claim. Some may believe that it is more a story than a fact, but it is most certainly presented as a fact, and thus it is important to point out that on a factual level, Exodus never happened.
So, in conclusion, applying science to a metaphyiscal claim is indeed more often than not a waste of time, but claiming that 3 million Jews were wandering the Sinai for 40 years is not metaphysical.
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote: Lol i just used it as an obvious example. I have never talked about an "absolute" wtf. It is so annoying to discuss with you. You are always trying to put words in my mouth. Also let's be clear once for all. If you have a "good job" with a "nice salary" it means that you are enjoying it and it is good for you which is completly different than taking a beating and suffering ! Now if your boss is a complete jerk it means that your job isn't "good" anymore and you should do something about it. If you stay and you become the bitch then yea you are submissive. It is a matter of CHOICES and of WILL. I can't believe you don't understand stuff like this. You are always trying to make things more complicated than they really are.
And your example is wrong, because you're arbitrarily dividing the world between those who submit and those who don't while almost everyone eventually submits to someone or something to different degrees. Maybe that wife took a beating, but maybe she's Rihanna and she's not really sad about her life overall. I mean, maybe you're a hippie and you believe that you would easily stand up to your boss and give up a 100k salary just because you're "not his bitch", but many people will gladly overcome humiliation to maintain their situation, at all levels. Of course it's a matter of choice, a matter of will not so much, you can simply not mind that much to be under the orders of someone. I don't see your point there (is there one anyway?).
For fuck sake stop to bring new words "being happy overall with your life" doesn't mean that taking a beating is healthy. HEY I LOVE MY LIFE SO FAR SO YOU CAN PUNCH ME IN THE FACE, YEA DO IT AGAIN I LIKE IT. Also stop to ask non questions. If you value the "humiliation" 100k/month where is the fucking problem ? For 100k/month i would do many things (but not everything) and i would end up leaving my job after a while because at one point it is USELESS to gain money if you can't spend it. There is no point in feeling humiliated at work when you have X millions in your bank account That's how modern society "works", wage vs work. What's your compensation when you take a beating by your husband btw ?
And yea sure i'm "arbitrarily dividing the world" lol. Coming from someone who is talking about "metaphysics" i find it HILARIOUS. Like if there is something outside "physics".
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote: Words for words ! Smart is being clever ! Smart is being witty ! Smart is being bright ! But what is being clever ? What is being witty ? What is being bright ?
Since "smart" is a synonym of "intelligent, you have your own answer :
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote: Being intelligent doesn't mean shit if you are still a bum.
If you say that a bum can be "intelligent" but not "smart", then you're obviously using very different definitions for both while it is commonly aknowledged that they have similar definitions. In short, you're defending a poorly defined "concept" you once thought about that makes "smart" a synonym of "power".
Some say that knowledge is power, but to quote a clever girl, "power is power".
Wtf is that gibberish lol. You are playing around with words and synonyms like if they are part of an equation.You are not even understanding what i'm saying. Words like "smart", "intelligent", "bright" have no meaning per se. It is always related to your abilities in the real(lol) world. So if you are a bum there are some good chances that you are either a very sick, weak and unhealthy person and/or DUMB ("debilus" in Roman meant crippled, lame, incapable, weak at the same time, whereas nowadays we are making a distinction between physical and "mental" abilities). Now please spare me your psychiatric studies about homeless people i don't want to know if they are either unlucky, have mental-illnesses, depressed with lower IQ or whatever. I have no interest in writing a thesis about it, i just want to not be like them lol. Also i don't want to have ressentiment towards people with higher status and abilities.
When I think about my level of intelligence I always feel disappointed in myself for failing myself so much. I used to believe that I was above everyone in intelligence but now I understand that I'm just average if not below average... So now all I can do is try my best to sustain a happy life.
On April 18 2012 22:22 zalz wrote: Does Exodus contain an incredibly complex code that we cannot decypher. Perhaps.
Did Exodus ever happen in the physical sense? No, it did not. In this case, the absence of evidence serves as evidence of absence. A human society cannot travel the Sinai desert for 40 years and leave no trace. It is simply not possible.
[...]
The claim that there were 3 million Jews wandering the Sinai desert for 40 years is not a metaphysical claim.
So applying science to the story of Exodus is not wrong, because Exodus isn't exclusively a metaphysical claim. Some may believe that it is more a story than a fact, but it is most certainly presented as a fact, and thus it is important to point out that on a factual level, Exodus never happened.
So, in conclusion, applying science to a metaphyiscal claim is indeed more often than not a waste of time, but claiming that 3 million Jews were wandering the Sinai for 40 years is not metaphysical.
It's not metaphysical, it can be metaphorical.
Now, how do we know that the Exodus never happened? Does absence of evidence mean the evidence of absence in history? It does not. I'll take the example of Caesar, who was one of few sources that we had on the life of certain northern tribes in Gallia. When he spoke of human sacrifices, we had every reason to doubt that his words were true and not a simple piece of propaganda against the barbarians. There was no other form of evidence that pointed towards the existance of human sacrifices in the druidic culture apart from Caesar's Bellum Gallicum, which, as an important source, almost counts as "evidence" (there rarely are "hard" forms of evidence in history, most of the time conclusions come from the multiplication of sources). While historians remained suspicious, it was assumed that maybe this was true, and the doubt remained until something or someone would disprove or prove this. We now know it's true after the examination of sacred grounds and the skelettons we found in them.
Whats does this mean? It means that if the Bible mentions a possible historical event, historians will have a positive approach of it, as the Bible counts as a source. To prove that it didn't happen, we needed to find elements that actually tell us that it didn't happen : estimations of the local population, traces of jewish populations in the area, climate estimations, etc. Which is not absence of evidence, it's the confrontation of sources. Now, I don't know myself what the conclusions are.
On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote: So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
There's more to the abrahamic faiths than this. You don't understand what religion is if you think this "undermines" them. Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical.
Exactly Zalz, the basis of religion is a belief. Don't try to argue it, rational thinking does not apply to religion.
On April 18 2012 22:27 Boblion wrote: For fuck sake stop to bring new words "being happy overall with your life" doesn't mean that taking a beating is healthy. HEY I LOVE MY LIFE SO FAR SO YOU CAN PUNCH ME IN THE FACE, YEA DO IT AGAIN I LIKE IT. Also stop to ask non questions. If you value the "humiliation" 100k/month where is the fucking problem ? For 100k/month i would do many things (but not everything) and i would end up leaving my job after a while because at one point it is USELESS to gain money if you can't spend it. There is no point in feeling humiliated at work when you have X millions in your bank account That's how modern society "works", wage vs work. What's your compensation when you take a beating by your husband btw ?
That's however how modern management works in high-pay jobs. Competition is omnipresent, and while you do have the holidays to try out your yacht, your boss owns your body and soul and will throw you away like garbage if you slow down the pace. Feeling humiliated at work has no impact on the amount of free time you have, and if you have little dignity to start with, you won't really mind. Now the "problem" of valuing this is that you're being submissive, which is my point : submission is not a matter of verticality and everyone submits to someone at different degrees. And your husband might beat you, but if you were educated in a tough, machist environment it won't feel "wrong". He could be a lovely husband aside of those rage otubursts for example, or maybe he has enough money to take care of you, and you find that it's not that bad to take a slap to the face every now and then if you can drive a Porsche and spend your summer in Ibiza without having to work at all.
But enough of far-fetched examples, my main point has been stated and you haven't adressed it.
On April 18 2012 22:27 Boblion wrote: And yea sure i'm "arbitrarily dividing the world" lol. Coming from someone who is talking about "metaphysics" i find it HILARIOUS. Like if there is something outside "physics".
You might want to send a letter to the College de France, they have a class called "metaphysics and philosophy of knowledge" directed by Claudine Tiercelin. Unless you realize that "metaphysical" doesn't textually mean "not physical" or "beyond what is physical".
On April 18 2012 22:27 Boblion wrote: Wtf is that gibberish lol. You are playing around with words and synonyms like if they are part of an equation.You are not even understanding what i'm saying. Words like "smart", "intelligent", "bright" have no meaning per se. It is always related to your abilities in the real(lol) world. So if you are a bum there are some good chances that you are either a very sick, weak and unhealthy person and/or DUMB ("debilus" in Roman meant crippled, lame, incapable, weak at the same time, whereas nowadays we are making a distinction between physical and "mental" abilities).
They do have a meaning, as long as you define it. The definition needs to be tied to the real world, true, but it's as simple as saying that being "intelligent" is showing a certain ability and quickness in mental tasks, and/or a certain knowledge and a good association of it. To says that being smart is being powerful is to enter the realm if pseudo-philosophy. "Dumb" does not come from "débile" by the way, it's a germanic word.
On April 18 2012 22:27 Boblion wrote: Now please spare me your psychiatric studies about homeless people i don't want to know if they are either unlucky, have mental-illnesses, depressed with lower IQ or whatever. I have no interest in writing a thesis about it, i just want to not be like them lol. Also i don't want to have ressentiment towards people with higher status and abilities.
Envy yes but no hatred.
Uh, okay.
On April 18 2012 03:24 sam!zdat wrote: <3 you kukaracha
Yes, and you argued that it was metaphysical, so you were wrong.
Now, how do we know that the Exodus never happened? Does absence of evidence mean the evidence of absence in history? It does not. I'll take the example of Caesar, who was one of few sources that we had on the life of certain northern tribes in Gallia. When he spoke of human sacrifices, we had every reason to doubt that his words were true and not a simple piece of propaganda against the barbarians. There was no other form of evidence that pointed towards the existance of human sacrifices in the druidic culture apart from Caesar's Bellum Gallicum, which, as an important source, almost counts as "evidence" (there rarely are "hard" forms of evidence in history, most of the time conclusions come from the multiplication of sources). While historians remained suspicious, it was assumed that maybe this was true, and the doubt remained until something or someone would disprove or prove this. We now know it's true after the examination of sacred grounds and the skelettons we found in them.
Everything you said was eventually supported by evidence.
Exodus was actively looked for. They dug and dug for god knows how long in the Sinai desert and they didn't find anything. When they went looking for what you just mentioned, they found evidence.
If 600k - 3million people had marched through the Sinai desert for 40 years, there would be a trace. Groups as small as 50.000 were lost in a desert and left a trace, the Jews aren't any different.
People held their old testament in hand and began to look all over the Sinai desert, and they didn't find a single thing. Nobody in Egypt or around Egypt has ever mentioned the Exodus, an event of such earth shaking magnitude that it could not have occured without inflicting some collective shock on the society of the region, yet nobody mentions anything.
The idea that Exodus took place is like suggesting there was a world war in between 1 and 2, but nobody decided to write about it and the evidence just magically cleaned itself up.
Ooh, and then you proceed to complain that the only way to prove that there isn't a world war 1.5, is by quoting people talking about how world war 1.5 didn't happen. Just because you picked up a new phrase in school (absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence) doesn't mean its a holy mantra that is actually true.
That whole phrase was largely revived around the idea of Iraq having WMD's. We didn't find them, but that didn't mean they weren't there. I don't think you can find anyone that is sane of mind that will still claim that Iraq had WMD's.
If you don't find any evidence for something, despite looking tirelessly as many Jewish historians did, that is a good sign that it probably didn't happen. And when even the Jewish historians start to give up, you might have to just accept that you are fanatical in your desire to believe the Exodus story.
Whats does this mean? It means that if the Bible mentions a possible historical event, historians will have a positive approach of it, as the Bible counts as a source. To prove that it didn't happen, we needed to find elements that actually tell us that it didn't happen : estimations of the local population, traces of jewish populations in the area, climate estimations, etc. Which is not absence of evidence, it's the confrontation of sources. Now, I don't know myself what the conclusions are.
So we need to find tons of reports of people outright saying:
"This didn't happen!"
Are you delusional? Why in the world would an Egyptian write that something didn't happen when the story was going to be made up several years after the imaginary event that never took place.
We know for a fact that human socities leave traces. 600.000 - 3 million people cannot travel through a desert for 40 years and leave no trace, this is impossible.
Thus, by not finding any evidence, we confirm that it never happened. If they had travelled for 40 years in the desert, they would have left a trace. This isn't a theory, this is a fact. They could have impossibly traveled the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace.
You are stuck in repeating the same phrase, but you fail to understand even the most basic thing about human societies. They leave traces.
The idea that the Exodus took place has just as much evidence as the idea that Jews lived in North-America. None.
Yes, and you argued that it was metaphysical, so you were wrong.
I never said so, and if it seemed like it did, then it was a misinterpretation. What I was saying is that wether this happened or not is a non-issue to many believers themselves and does not question the Bible per se.
On April 19 2012 01:03 zalz wrote: Everything you said was eventually supported by evidence.
Exodus was actively looked for. They dug and dug for god knows how long in the Sinai desert and they didn't find anything. When they went looking for what you just mentioned, they found evidence.
If 600k - 3million people had marched through the Sinai desert for 40 years, there would be a trace. Groups as small as 50.000 were lost in a desert and left a trace, the Jews aren't any different.
[...]
The idea that the Exodus took place has just as much evidence as the idea that Jews lived in North-America. None.
Right, so even if I agree with you, there isn't absence of evidence, because we found evidence that no population lived there. "Evidence" is not the same thing in history and harder sciences. You might say that I'm playing with words (wink at Boblion), but this simply isn't absence of evidence. We had one source saying there was an Exodus, but many others, more trustworthy pointing towards the contrary.
But to tell the truth, there is actually no consensus in that way, no one know where the mentioned cities were located, no one knows what mount was the mount Sinaï, and because "evidence of absence blablabla" doesn't work in history, it hasn't been declared that the Exodus officially doesn't exist.
If it has, I'd like to see your widely-accepted sources.
On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote: So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
There's more to the abrahamic faiths than this. You don't understand what religion is if you think this "undermines" them. Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical.
Exactly Zalz, the basis of religion is a belief. Don't try to argue it, rational thinking does not apply to religion.
Oh, I think you can be perfectly rational about religion. It may require a more sophisticated concept of "rationality."
Coming from someone who is talking about "metaphysics" i find it HILARIOUS. Like if there is something outside "physics".
Now this is just ignorant.
edit:
You are stuck in repeating the same phrase, but you fail to understand even the most basic thing about human societies. They leave traces.
Brother, just how much written trace do you imagine we have from centuries of ancient Egyptian civilization?
On April 19 2012 01:55 TORTOISE wrote: In conclusion, I deem zalz the winner.
Depends on how you look at it. I believe sam gets the last word here.
zalz was just temp banned for 90 days by p4NDemik.
That account was created on 2011-02-23 02:08:41 and had 2390 posts.
Reason: You have 3 bans and a very specific mod note all highlighting the fact that you can't help but make posts intending to provoke and bait out horrible comments from others. This is your last chance.
sam!zdat was just temp banned for 2 days by p4NDemik.
That account was created on 2010-10-14 03:45:55 and had 504 posts.
Reason: Read threads and reply intelligently. Do not make horrible one-line posts.
On April 18 2012 22:27 Snuggles wrote: When I think about my level of intelligence I always feel disappointed in myself for failing myself so much. I used to believe that I was above everyone in intelligence but now I understand that I'm just average if not below average... So now all I can do is try my best to sustain a happy life.
Aha me and you both brotha
and someone said that you cant judge someone on intelligence by looking at them, but the whole point of this thread was me figuring out i could...But thats just me
On April 19 2012 06:38 zany_001 wrote: Well, I was going to go on and ask zalz how he knew he existed but it might take him a while to reply :/
Sorry but this question makes no sense, as it's the same as asking 'do you know if there is someone taking a pee right now in this moment?' nobody can answer that question. But by probability: You are 99% sure that there is someone peeing right now but you can't be sure. In this context you can't tell if you exist, but per probability it makes it obvious that one exists, as that what someone is experiencing is certainly something, but noone can tell what it is.
On April 17 2012 15:48 firehand101 wrote: I think I have figured out how to judge someone's intelligence at a glance
So how exactly does this work - do I understand this 2point system correctly?
.1 religious or not? yes = -intelligence , no = +intelligence .2 fox news viewer? yes = -intelligence , no = +intelligence
According to which the maximum intelligence rating is given to Atheists who do not watch fox news, whereas the lowest possible rating goes to religious people who also watch fox news on a regular basis
Then there is a medium intelligence rating which can be obtained by beeing either an Atheistic fox news viewer or Amish.
On April 19 2012 01:55 TORTOISE wrote: In conclusion, I deem zalz the winner.
Who are you to declare a winner? Most likely you're just doing so because his statements correspond to your predisposed attitude toward the subject. Sam and kukaracha have the sensible side here, it's silly when people conflate the whole of rationality with the limited realm of empiricism.
On April 19 2012 17:56 ]343[ wrote: yet another poorly thought-out blog, brought to us by "guy who got kicked out of chat channels and whined about it'
On April 17 2012 15:48 firehand101 wrote: I think I have figured out how to judge someone's intelligence at a glance
So how exactly does this work - do I understand this 2point system correctly?
.1 religious or not? yes = -intelligence , no = +intelligence .2 fox news viewer? yes = -intelligence , no = +intelligence
According to which the maximum intelligence rating is given to Atheists who do not watch fox news, whereas the lowest possible rating goes to religious people who also watch fox news on a regular basis
Then there is a medium intelligence rating which can be obtained by beeing either an Atheistic fox news viewer or Amish.
Ok, so you just stated that you think that people are not intelligent if they believe the fox news. Then you are giving your source which is a comedie show. This guy is obviously joking (its his job) and you take this serieus. I think if I combine this two things then we can assume that you are in fact not intelligent. You also stated that people who believe in a religion are not intelligent because they don't do their research. I wanna bet you didn't do any research. You can respond to that with " I don't have anything to research because I don't believe in anything". Well, from the point of view of everyone that is religions you are in fact not intelligent because you didn't do your research.
Conclusion is that you are in not that intelligent as you may think.
On April 19 2012 14:09 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Sam and kukaracha have the sensible side here, it's silly when people conflate the whole of rationality with the limited realm of empiricism.
Yes, that's it, well put.
It is a conclusion of empirical science (and a priori mathematics) that some things cannot be accessed empirically in finite time (c.f. complexity classes in computation, emergence, incompleteness). Therefore, the most rational position would be to accept the fact that metaphysical ground (or fundamental Being) may not be accessible completely through empirical inquiry. This does not mean that it is wholly unknowable, the same way that the dynamics of complex systems are not accessible to Enlightenment rationality but may be accessed through the application of more sophisticated paradigms.
For a somewhat related and fascinating discussion of computer science vs. computer theory, scroll down to the april 22 2004 entry: http://number-none.com/blow/rants.html
The whole site is fantastic, jonathan blow is a smart dude.
Coming Up on FOX on the O'Reilley Factor, Bill O'Reilley shows a shocking report from the department of Justice that Obama is a Robot Muslim Nazi Communist who wasn't born in America, hates all women, dogs and blacks and actually told Rush Limbaugh in confidence that he was actually a crab person. And heres Johnny with the weather.
On April 19 2012 10:26 ninazerg wrote: You have a right to your opinions, except for one.
The Young Turks is bullshit.
And how so? i think their telling of the news is just pure straight up, no bullshit attached.
if you want to be smart, read the news from every possible angle, from rt and al jazeera to cnn, msnbc to fox news, then figure out what is consistent and what actually makes logical sense from that, that's the only way you get the truth if you follow american news
On April 22 2012 21:30 TheAntZ wrote: I used to think anyone that believed in religion was a moron too puberty was a crazy time man
It's like the curse of upper-middle class highschool males. In my experience.
It seems so obvious then, doesn't it?
My dad goes to church and, in high school, I was like, "You're a university Bioinformatics professor ffs, how can you believe in god? Why do you insist on this waste of time every sunday?" He just laughed and told me I'd understand when I'm older. Looking back on it now, I'm scared at how stupid I might still be and not realize it -.-;;
..........what the fuck. I dont go to church but I am not an athiest. I believe the bible, although you have tovuse other documents from the time period to get a more accurate view about it. And probably reading the bible in its original language so that nothing was mis translated.
EPT
