|
On August 03 2011 12:07 AraMoOse wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 03 2011 10:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 05:19 Spidinko wrote:On August 03 2011 04:39 mcc wrote:On August 03 2011 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia. It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ? God is supposed to be beyond matter and time. Note especially, that does not mean exclusively. Note but. Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands. Very well, even if we were to grant your interpretation of that definition, are you agnostic about the existence of transcendental metaphysical fairies? Adding that something is metaphysical changes nothing about the methods available to us for determining if things exist. If evidentiary support is not available, then belief in an entity is not justified. You're probably an atheist too, you just don't want to admit it to yourself. If your answer to 'do you believe a God exists' is not yes, then you do not believe a god exists. 1+1=2 Of course agnostics say 'but I don't KNOW'. That doesn't matter, nobody KNOWS, the question is do you believe? Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive at all. Also I suppose it`s not my place to say, and maybe a bit hypocritical on my part, but isn't this thread supposed to be about critical thinking and stuff? Surely the discussion I just joined in to could have its own thread? In fact i'm pretty sure it already has tons.
It's somewhat intertwined, especially since Qualiasoup is also big on this theme, so I don't think its out of context.
|
On August 02 2011 01:12 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 00:53 Thorakh wrote:On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote:
Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know? What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."? I think it's one of those ways that allows a lot of people to be able to cope with their own mortality. So long as there's a reason or an explanation for everything, life and death isn't so terrifying. One must overcome a big psychological hurdle to break away from those presupposed conclusions to begin imagining a world where infinite possibilities exist, until it's been discovered, because it's a pretty scary thought to think that you're just here to pump out babies and then you're worm food. For instance, I'm pretty much convinced that my fiancee believes in ghosts and the paranormal because she's had to deal with a lot of people dying in her life, and it makes her feel comfortable to believe that their lives still have a purpose, or a role to play in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't ever be such a dick as to try and convince her otherwise as some people on both sides of the reason vs religion debate are prone to do. That's her belief, so who the hell am I to try and convert her? Not knowing the answers is pretty scary, but then you start to realize that just because it hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An afterlife etc. can still exist, but maybe it's not given to us by following what's written in 2-8,000 year-old books. Maybe certain holy texts were in fact written by humans, who are fallible, and who got a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe one has it right. Maybe a different one has it right. Maybe everyone's wrong. There's so many choices, how does one decide which one has it down to the dotted i's and crossed t's? Thus one is lead down the path of reason and skepticism. Show me proof and I'll accept your view. Until then, don't try and shove it down my throat and I'll extend to you the same courtesy. Some religious doctrine would have you believe that thinking in such ways is heretical and that it only produces an amoral, wandering, lost soul. I don't feel amoral, nor do I feel lost. I actually feel rather comfortable in living my life under the 'Don't be a dick' credo, and just downright excited to imagine how our understanding of the world will look as I get older.
You know what you call these people are? Not using their brain and don't use critical thinking, rational and reasoning. You're using the emotions excuse as a curtain for these kind of people but in reality your girlfriend is not using her brain to her full potential, I'm sorry to say but it's true. Believing in anything without evidence is ludicrous pure and simple.
|
On August 03 2011 12:23 OooLong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 01:12 Bibdy wrote:On August 02 2011 00:53 Thorakh wrote:On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote:
Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know? What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."? I think it's one of those ways that allows a lot of people to be able to cope with their own mortality. So long as there's a reason or an explanation for everything, life and death isn't so terrifying. One must overcome a big psychological hurdle to break away from those presupposed conclusions to begin imagining a world where infinite possibilities exist, until it's been discovered, because it's a pretty scary thought to think that you're just here to pump out babies and then you're worm food. For instance, I'm pretty much convinced that my fiancee believes in ghosts and the paranormal because she's had to deal with a lot of people dying in her life, and it makes her feel comfortable to believe that their lives still have a purpose, or a role to play in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't ever be such a dick as to try and convince her otherwise as some people on both sides of the reason vs religion debate are prone to do. That's her belief, so who the hell am I to try and convert her? Not knowing the answers is pretty scary, but then you start to realize that just because it hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An afterlife etc. can still exist, but maybe it's not given to us by following what's written in 2-8,000 year-old books. Maybe certain holy texts were in fact written by humans, who are fallible, and who got a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe one has it right. Maybe a different one has it right. Maybe everyone's wrong. There's so many choices, how does one decide which one has it down to the dotted i's and crossed t's? Thus one is lead down the path of reason and skepticism. Show me proof and I'll accept your view. Until then, don't try and shove it down my throat and I'll extend to you the same courtesy. Some religious doctrine would have you believe that thinking in such ways is heretical and that it only produces an amoral, wandering, lost soul. I don't feel amoral, nor do I feel lost. I actually feel rather comfortable in living my life under the 'Don't be a dick' credo, and just downright excited to imagine how our understanding of the world will look as I get older. You know what you call these people are? Not using their brain and don't use critical thinking, rational and reasoning. You're using the emotions excuse as a curtain for these kind of people but in reality your girlfriend is not using her brain to her full potential, I'm sorry to say but it's true. Believing in anything without evidence is ludicrous pure and simple.
Like believing that there is such a thing as "using the brain to a full potential" and furthermore thinking you would have an answer to how such a subjective state would be acheived? Seems pretty narrow-minded to me.
But I get the original point by Torkah. The fact that some beliefs can help people cope, or promote a healthy lifestyle or whatever, that's all about practical implications and it doesn't give any information about if an argument is valid or true.
Anyway, I get more annoyed with "I know the truth because I'm a skeptic armed with critical thinking" than "I know the truth because of my religion". But I like critical thinking as long as it's not followed by "join our cult of critical thinkers". It's like the words skeptic and critical thinking are so often used by people with very extreme ideas that they just make me think about that instead of the scientific method and other nice things.
|
While reading posts, I came up with this thought. Generally a theory is made in science to pose a hypothesis on just about anything. However, in my experience most experiments are setup to either solve a problem, ask a question, or measure the effects of a situation, or something to similar extents. The thing that sticks out to me is that all of this pertain to some greater influence, or power if you will, at hand.
From the basics of chemistry, basic laws of physics, and to a common ancestor, science works to provide answers to where these interactions originate.
If you follow me to this point; does not religion work to provide answers to where these interactions originate? Are we as a species not looking for an answer to where this all came from? Does the word God not describe these things?
I am saddened by how people attach the word and idea of God to the fundamentalist sects of religion that are obivously created with bad intentions to begin with.
|
I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 03 2011 13:31 LloydRays wrote:
While reading posts, I came up with this thought. Generally a theory is made in science to pose a hypothesis on just about anything. However, in my experience most experiments are setup to either solve a problem, ask a question, or measure the effects of a situation, or something to similar extents. The thing that sticks out to me is that all of this pertain to some greater influence, or power if you will, at hand.
From the basics of chemistry, basic laws of physics, and to a common ancestor, science works to provide answers to where these interactions originate.
If you follow me to this point; does not religion work to provide answers to where these interactions originate? Are we as a species not looking for an answer to where this all came from? Does the word God not describe these things?
I am saddened by how people attach the word and idea of God to the fundamentalist sects of religion that are obivously created with bad intentions to begin with.
The scientific method looks at an effect, and tries to find a cause and comes up with a hypothesis, which when tried and tested becomes a theory.
The religious method is the other way around - "god is the answer/cause, lets shave every square peg to fit this round hole, no matter how illogical, irrational or badly argued". That's part of the reason the whole religious debate is so toxic - its logic versus a lack of logic, its truth versus lying, its fact versus fiction. And im not just talking mythology, im talking the minutiae and historical detail are often lied about to fit a persons faith, and the image of non-believers.
The current pope has famously said that condoms are as bad as abortion and makes AIDS worse, he moved paedophile priests from dioceses where they molested children to other diocese where they reoffended and never reported to police, because the public relations image of the church was more important than justice for abused kids. He likened the rise of atheism to nazism, even though the nazi's were uniformly christian, and Hitler was a catholic and loved to reference god in his speeches. In fact the ill-feeling to jews in Germany was due to hundreds of years of church preaching of the jews being the people who killed christ, not due to a lack of belief in god.
But he gets away with blatant lies and crimes because of his religious status. It sickens me.
|
On August 03 2011 13:31 LloydRays wrote:
While reading posts, I came up with this thought. Generally a theory is made in science to pose a hypothesis on just about anything. However, in my experience most experiments are setup to either solve a problem, ask a question, or measure the effects of a situation, or something to similar extents. The thing that sticks out to me is that all of this pertain to some greater influence, or power if you will, at hand.
From the basics of chemistry, basic laws of physics, and to a common ancestor, science works to provide answers to where these interactions originate.
If you follow me to this point; does not religion work to provide answers to where these interactions originate? Are we as a species not looking for an answer to where this all came from? Does the word God not describe these things?
I am saddened by how people attach the word and idea of God to the fundamentalist sects of religion that are obivously created with bad intentions to begin with.
Maybe, but maybe not. Several years before many things we now know how or why they happen were attributed to God, imagine what would've happened to the world if everyone thought like you, we wouldn't even have iphones, internet or even teamliquid, starcraft! now that would be hell.
We just keep discovering more and more, who knows, maybe we do end up discovering that misterious force and it may very well turn out to not be God.
|
On August 03 2011 14:26 Cytokinesis wrote:
I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
I am very happy to hear you have such an exciting Phd-project to work on. Society will certainly profit immensely from people who work on "very,very,very" modern concepts that relate to "everything else [sic!]". Unfortunately, this thread is not profiting at all from your posts, they rather seem like troll bait to me ...
If you are genuine then you will surely be glad that somebody informed you about this. I would like to end with another pro-tip: In academia, humility is key! Cheers!
|
On August 03 2011 14:26 Cytokinesis wrote:
I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
And you continue with condescension and not actually providing any arguments at all. It is also funny that your ending quote can more easily be applied to your own post (as you actually posted no relevant information) than to other posts in this thread.
Also saying "normal people" about non-philosophers in this context is pretty pejorative and once more reveals your attitude of supremacy. I also find funny the fact that you think philosophy is so complex it would take years to explain, when all I ever saw in philosophy are convoluted arguments that would take much less time to explain than actual scientific/math problems, the only problem in philosophy is getting the jargon.
|
On August 03 2011 14:26 Cytokinesis wrote:
I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
User was warned for this post
I think all your view on philosophy is flawed... Plato's republic is still one of the most important book in political philosophie yet it was written by a guy who did not care about the current status of "research" in the academic field.
Sartre intended to write his own philosophy from nothing, forgetting it's history... does it made his work bad in anyway ?
|
On August 03 2011 10:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 05:19 Spidinko wrote:On August 03 2011 04:39 mcc wrote:On August 03 2011 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia. It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ? God is supposed to be beyond matter and time. Note especially, that does not mean exclusively. Note but. Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
It also says it's about certain claims not claims in general. Which claims is specified between those lovely characters. (that is, especially claims about existance of any deity, BUT also...you see where I'm going)
|
On August 03 2011 18:59 Spidinko wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 10:12 mcc wrote:On August 03 2011 05:19 Spidinko wrote:On August 03 2011 04:39 mcc wrote:On August 03 2011 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 21:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2011 20:27 Vore210 wrote:On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote:
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god. Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all... You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic. But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here. Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet. I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia. It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ? God is supposed to be beyond matter and time. Note especially, that does not mean exclusively. Note but. Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands. It also says it's about certain claims not claims in general. Which claims is specified between those lovely characters. (that is, especially claims about existance of any deity, BUT also...you see where I'm going)
"especially ... , but also .... " is not in my opinion exclusive list of all claims that "certain claims" refers to. But that is in the end irrelevant semantic bickering. I can just as easily move trolls and fairies under the concept of deities, religious claims or even metaphysical claims. Especially the second one is actually their origin.
|
On May 02 2010 08:57 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 08:53 zulu_nation8 wrote:
This is a dangerous road to scientism What's wrong with that? User was temp banned for this post.
Why was he temp banned for that? Is tl racist to Scientology
|
^ ^ ^
It's scientism, not scietology.
The idea that only science ( not religion nor philosophy) should be used to dictate/ describe the workings of our universe. Not sure why he'd be banned for that, was curious myself.
|
Lixler was just temp banned for 30 days by Kennigit.
That account was created on 2010-03-03 03:20:07 and had 53 posts.
Reason: Really obnoxious poster. Lose your attitude.
I guess it was his constant one liners and confrontational attitude but that's just my take on this based on his posting history. This is really off topic but I wondered myself and wanted to spare others the search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
