|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful.
Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"?
Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate  Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality.
Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality?
|
On November 15 2015 22:51 blomsterjohn wrote:
Define "god", I bet you differ - hence the disagreement
On November 15 2015 22:49 heliusx wrote:
Oh come on, ideology is a belief not a god. Let's not twist the word god around to make your stupid point.
On November 15 2015 22:46 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:
[quote]
Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you.
Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered.
I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack.
A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. . Your statement Is not false no, he did say god though, which atheists clearly do not believe in.
He did say "some kind of god", thus I explained what I think he meant, because indeed "some kind of god" is not very clear. So yes, ideologies are "some kind of god", as ideologies are one of the origins of the "Religious Feeling" as defined by Le Bon.
|
On November 15 2015 22:47 ForTehDarkseid wrote:
@farvacola, people are free to believe in anything they want.
But when they are trying to live their daily lives by laws imposed by a 2k-year old weakly interpreted holy book, which openly opposes the modern dayview, well..
Ahh, but I very much agree with you here. I'd just go one step further and focus on why violent and exegetically weak forms of Islam are gaining traction rather than focusing on religion or Islam generally. OtherWorld summed up my point nicely.
I do find it funny how many folks get all fussy once one uses the word "god" to describe their ideological framework or belief system. The point is that, semantics aside, irrational belief systems are part and parcel with being human, and that some folks label theirs with god-language ought not obscure the fact that religious and non-religious people are actually doing practically the same thing as they attempt to give meaning to a meaningless existence
|
On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:
[quote]
Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you.
Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered.
I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack.
A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality?
Interested in that too.
|
I do find it funny that some folks want to use the word god to describe something that is not a god. Of course thay would be the status quo for discourse here, to have semantic arguments in lieu of actual arguments.
|
On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:
[quote]
Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you.
Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered.
I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack.
A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality?
Well, for example, any scientist who does not pay attention to the secondary effects and/or unintended consequences of what he's working on, because he's persuaded that Science can only lead to Good.
Any scientist (or anyone for that matter) who thinks that when trying to cure a disease, the psychological aspect, the human aspect, doesn't matter, and that the body is only a mechanical-like thing.
Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis.
|
On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward.
I will just say that you overestimate the simple follower , the simple guy that goes to church /musk /sinagog is EASLY influenced by their spiritual leader , it doesn't matter if he read the book that his religion follows , the leader of the group (like in a cult a lot of the time) is leading the group ideology and critical thinking , I think when ppl blame religion they should blame the local leaders, they influence the most , if they have extreme ideology or power hungry or just delusional they can sway the believers to do as they want , mainly if those are young ppl without guidance or purpose (no jobs , no future , rejected by society) .
So religion is not to blame but the ppl who abuse it to brainwash and persuade followers to do as THEY want in excuses that its actually "gods" will....
|
On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:
[quote]
A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about.
I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already.
And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts.
Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people.
Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Well, for example, any scientist who does not pay attention to the secondary effects and/or unintended consequences of what he's working on, because he's persuaded that Science can only lead to Good. Any scientist (or anyone for that matter) who thinks that when trying to cure a disease, the psychological aspect, the human aspect, doesn't matter, and that the body is only a mechanical-like thing. Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis.
What you describe is being "stubborn". Not irrational. Rationality is based on facts and reason, that's why we nowadays have the theory of general relativity. Something that was laughed upon at the beginning, and was accepted when it was proven. It didn't matter than no one (apart from a selected few) didn't believe in it. They did, as soon as facts showed up.
Apart from the obvious thing that a body certainly is only a biomechanical entitiy. Now for what makes "you", "you" - that's up for discussion, no actual scientist claims to know or understand that. That's being rational, again. Other than the polar opposite, "well i am, so MUST be magic".
Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true
This part specifically is what i'm referring to. It's wrong. People refuse to accept something that isn't proven, that's literally being rational. See Cannae/EM Drive. It does something, nobody understands why really. For now people assume that there's measurement errors, instead of jumping on the ship that it defies known physics. That's, again, the literal translation of rationality. edit: they still test it, to see if something comes off of it - and if it turns out that it actually does defy our physics, they get rewritten. Like they did plenty of times before.
|
On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:
[quote]
A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about.
I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already.
And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts.
Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people.
Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis.
These people are, by definition, not scientists
|
On November 15 2015 23:14 CptMarvel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:
[quote]
Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid.
You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. These people are, by definition, not scientists
If you define scientists as ideal human beings who always manage to think 100% objectively, yes you're right.
|
On November 15 2015 23:24 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:14 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:
[quote]
You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person.
An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. These people are, by definition, not scientists If you define scientists as ideal human beings who always manage to think 100% objectively, yes you're right.
My point was to show you that science had no inner absolutism, as opposed to the other ideologies you mentionned.
|
On November 15 2015 23:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:
[quote]
Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid.
You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Well, for example, any scientist who does not pay attention to the secondary effects and/or unintended consequences of what he's working on, because he's persuaded that Science can only lead to Good. Any scientist (or anyone for that matter) who thinks that when trying to cure a disease, the psychological aspect, the human aspect, doesn't matter, and that the body is only a mechanical-like thing. Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. What you describe is being "stubborn". Not irrational. Rationality is based on facts and reason, that's why we nowadays have the theory of general relativity. Something that was laughed upon at the beginning, and was accepted when it was proven. It didn't matter than no one (apart from a selected few) didn't believe in it. They did, as soon as facts showed up. Apart from the obvious thing that a body certainly is only a biomechanical entitiy. Now for what makes "you", "you" - that's up for discussion, no actual scientist claims to know or understand that. That's being rational, again. Other than the polar opposite, "well i am, so MUST be magic". Show nested quote +Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true This part specifically is what i'm referring to. It's wrong. People refuse to accept something that isn't proven, that's literally being rational. See Cannae/EM Drive. It does something, nobody understands why really. For now people assume that there's measurement errors, instead of jumping on the ship that it defies known physics. That's, again, the literal translation of rationality. edit: they still test it, to see if something comes off of it - and if it turns out that it actually does defy our physics, they get rewritten. Like they did plenty of times before.
"being stubborn" and being irrational is sometimes exactly the same. Yes, most scientist are first and foremost sceptical when it comes to unprecedented theories, but people in sciences often refuse to accept something even if there are evidences for it. Just check up on the history of quasi-crystals. Nobel laureate Linus Pauling and a bunch of other chemists/phycisists did not believe in the existence of quasi-crystals.
|
On November 15 2015 22:51 OtherWorld wrote:
Why did you condemn them, then, if you didn't have a 100% rational, reasoned, reaction? Because you most likely believe in Tolerance, in Humanism, in the Human Rights. Yes, that's not a god. Yes, that's still a belief, something that isn't rational.
Tu te contredis dans cette affirmation, problème d'anglais ?
I condemn them because I dont want people to kill me and as such I dont want people to kill others. My belief if u want one is that I dont want to do others what I dont want others to do to me. And by extension I dont want others to do that to other neither. It's not believeing in I dunno what, it's just applying simple philosophy and understand than most of our society is based on such simple philosophy.
|
On November 15 2015 23:28 CptMarvel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:24 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 23:14 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. These people are, by definition, not scientists If you define scientists as ideal human beings who always manage to think 100% objectively, yes you're right. My point was to show you that science had no inner absolutism, as opposed to the other ideologies you mentionned.
Sadly that's wrong. And history as plenty of example of stubborn scientists.
|
On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:
[quote]
A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about.
I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already.
And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts.
Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people.
Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Well, for example, any scientist who does not pay attention to the secondary effects and/or unintended consequences of what he's working on, because he's persuaded that Science can only lead to Good. Any scientist (or anyone for that matter) who thinks that when trying to cure a disease, the psychological aspect, the human aspect, doesn't matter, and that the body is only a mechanical-like thing. Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis.
Skepticism is the core of the scientific approach, every individual have a personal view on Nature but this approach does not influence the result because the scientific language is universal. By exemple, Hawking was against the theory of Higgs but once it has been proved, he accepted it.
Moreover, your second point is about epistemology with some different perspectives on physiology, I don't understand how it is supposed to prove your point. And the first one is beyond ridiculous, it is about science ethic and concerns people but it has nothing to do this science irrationality.
You could have quoted some Nietzsche in his criticism of rationality (even if he is mostly against the positivism thought and the fat that Science could find a total Truth) or some American relativism which basically says that the description of nature by science is the same than in the bible and stuff like this but it seems like you have totally no clue about what you're talking about.
|
On November 15 2015 23:24 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:14 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:
[quote]
You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person.
An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. These people are, by definition, not scientists If you define scientists as ideal human beings who always manage to think 100% objectively, yes you're right.
And by that definition, I'm sure all the moderate "god believers" will also claim, that the more radical ones are not by definition not muslim/christian/whatever.
But in the same way as there a quite a lot of opinions of what the correct interpretation of certain religions is, there are quite a few interpretations of how to interpret our scieintific knowledge and what is to be assumed true.
And in both cases, people fight zealously for their interpretation and claim that the others are not "true" scientists/muslims/christians/whatever.
And more often than not we won't be able to figure out who was right and who was wrong, so the struggle continues.
|
On November 15 2015 23:28 CptMarvel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:24 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 23:14 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. These people are, by definition, not scientists If you define scientists as ideal human beings who always manage to think 100% objectively, yes you're right. My point was to show you that science had no inner absolutism, as opposed to the other ideologies you mentionned.
Don't you think showing intolerance to people who refuses to completely accept that Science is correct is a form of inner absolutism? (honest question)
|
On November 15 2015 23:29 Aluminumtribromide wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:12 m4ini wrote:On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:
[quote]
You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person.
An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Well, for example, any scientist who does not pay attention to the secondary effects and/or unintended consequences of what he's working on, because he's persuaded that Science can only lead to Good. Any scientist (or anyone for that matter) who thinks that when trying to cure a disease, the psychological aspect, the human aspect, doesn't matter, and that the body is only a mechanical-like thing. Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. What you describe is being "stubborn". Not irrational. Rationality is based on facts and reason, that's why we nowadays have the theory of general relativity. Something that was laughed upon at the beginning, and was accepted when it was proven. It didn't matter than no one (apart from a selected few) didn't believe in it. They did, as soon as facts showed up. Apart from the obvious thing that a body certainly is only a biomechanical entitiy. Now for what makes "you", "you" - that's up for discussion, no actual scientist claims to know or understand that. That's being rational, again. Other than the polar opposite, "well i am, so MUST be magic". Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true This part specifically is what i'm referring to. It's wrong. People refuse to accept something that isn't proven, that's literally being rational. See Cannae/EM Drive. It does something, nobody understands why really. For now people assume that there's measurement errors, instead of jumping on the ship that it defies known physics. That's, again, the literal translation of rationality. edit: they still test it, to see if something comes off of it - and if it turns out that it actually does defy our physics, they get rewritten. Like they did plenty of times before. "being stubborn" and being irrational is sometimes exactly the same. Yes, most scientist are first and foremost sceptical when it comes to unprecedented theories, but people in sciences often refuse to accept something even if there are evidences for it. Just check up on the history of quasi-crystals. Nobel laureate Linus Pauling and a bunch of other chemists/phycisists did not believe in the existence of quasi-crystals.
What you mean is being sceptical of hypothesis. Not theories.
And it all depends as to what you're labeling "evidence". Take the EMDrive. Not sure if you heard of that device - it's basically (very layman) an enclosed box with no propellant, which produces net-thrust.
Something that literally defies our physics, not just in one way (newtons third law for example). Now you can say "it's doing stuff, so there's evidence for our physics being wrong". Yet, you almost never hear that from a scientist - they all say "well i don't know what it's doing, or how it does". Occams razor suggests, that there's problems with the enviroment that it was tested in (not in space). Etc.
If it turns out to be actually something else, like pushing somehow against virtual particles - our physics have to be rewritten, and not for the first time. And it would be, obviously.
|
On November 15 2015 23:29 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:51 OtherWorld wrote:
Why did you condemn them, then, if you didn't have a 100% rational, reasoned, reaction? Because you most likely believe in Tolerance, in Humanism, in the Human Rights. Yes, that's not a god. Yes, that's still a belief, something that isn't rational. Tu te contredis dans cette affirmation, problème d'anglais ? I condemn them because I dont want people to kill me and as such I dont want people to kill others. My belief if u want one is that I dont want to do others what I dont want others to do to me. And by extension I dont want others to do that to other neither. It's not believeing in I dunno what, it's just applying simple philosophy and understand than most of our society is based on such simple philosophy.
I don't see where I contradict myself?
Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. You're not "believing" in the societal sense (it's not an organized belief), but it's still a belief : you did not have a real reflexion on it. You say you don't want people to kill each others because of simple philosophy. That sounds fair.
But what if you had in front of you someone who's sure to die in a few hours, in agonizing pain? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question?
What if you had in front of you someone who raped and tortured children, used them as slaves? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question?
What if you had in front of you someone who wants to kill you once he gets his hands on a weapon? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question?
See? It's a belief. A belief in Tolerance and in the - theoreotical - values of France since the Enlightment. Doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you're a bad person for holding such beliefs, quite the contrary. But it's still a belief.
|
On November 15 2015 23:33 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:24 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 23:14 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. These people are, by definition, not scientists If you define scientists as ideal human beings who always manage to think 100% objectively, yes you're right. And by that definition, I'm sure all the moderate "god believers" will also claim, that the more radical ones are not by definition not muslim/christian/whatever. But in the same way as there a quite a lot of opinions of what the correct interpretation of certain religions is, there are quite a few interpretations of how to interpret our scieintific knowledge and what is to be assumed true. And in both cases, people fight zealously for their interpretation and claim that the others are not "true" scientists/muslims/christians/whatever. And more often than not we won't be able to figure out who was right and who was wrong, so the struggle continues.
Yes, that's a very interesting point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
