Learning...

[kpmarine]

Patience in the face of willful ignorance; and that it's amazing the evidence one can ignore when it proves inconvenient.

 

[tyler.durden]

Patience in the face of willful ignorance; and that it's amazing the evidence one can ignore when it proves inconvenient.

Love the new avatar!

 

[kpmarine]

Love the new avatar!

Thanks! I felt it expressed my feelings on deliberate butchery of the written word quite well. haha

 

[Dr.J20]

Rational arguments don't work on irrational people.

I've learned that there's no such binary opposition as "rational vs. irrational people." Everybody has a capacity for behaving rationally, and everybody has a capacity for behaving irrationally. To privilege the rational to the point of calling the irrational valueless is as dangerous as it's opposite.

 

[drive]

I enjoy all of your threads for or against, proven or unproven

 

[Dr.J20]

Religion reaches into my life by influencing religious politicians, thereby passing legislation based on religious foundations, which, often times, are completely contrary to American interests or subjective morality. Obvious.

When someone says something based on faith, it conflicts with logistical reasoning. The very definition of faith, which all organized religions are based on, is belief without sufficient evidence. In other words, belief based on authority, based on feeling, emotion, irrationality. These people should be publicly criticized because when doing so, it's impossible to stand up to reason. And being in public shames them back behind the curtain of irrationality, where they belong. If you have an idea, and it's of sound reasoning, it will be easy to convince other people of it's validity, if it's bullshit, they'll recognize it immediately. When it comes to science, the mob rule, rules, and there is a very specific reason for it. Understanding that reason is the first step to becoming a skeptical, reasonable, rational person.



Spoken like a true troll.

It seems like you have a bigger problem with theocracy than religion; i do too. I don't think religion should play any kind of role in a government, and neither did the USA's founders. I agree that a hierarchical religion which exercises coercive power in secular matters is harmful and fascist in rhetoric; but that's not a religion, really: thats the corruption of a religious practice. I think this discussion gets too dicey when we start conflating things like faith, belief, and religion; it becomes especially fraught when we add in the atheist-agnostic stuff. Generalising and making broad statements, and then erecting broad, absolute sounding binaries like "Science vs. religion" really doesn't do anything for progress. I think we learned a lot from the Enlightenment in the West, but this speaks nothing for eastern epistemologies and so this perpetuation of radical skepticism and scientific primacy at the expense of religion really needs to take a step back and consider a less extreme stance. The danger of ignorance is great, but so is the danger in provincialism. Can we all at least agree that since religion is part of human history--despite the detestations of some of you--and so is valuable insofar as it can be studied? That is, since we're stuck with it, isn't the truly scientific approach to learn and study everything about it, about the people who believe in it, why they believe it, whether there are any genetic differences between believers and non-believers (to use a very reductive and horrible terminology)?
Be easy

 

[Dr.J20]

also, if you have an idea and it is of sound reasoning, this means nothing for the capacity to persuade others of its validity. thats why we're here right now. some people disagree on what is sound, and what is bullshit. see the problem here?
For example, on some level, according to some phenomenologists, you believe the world still exists when you go to sleep at night, but no one has ever proved that to you: even a video of yourself sleeping is of questionable worth because it can only capture so much of the world. we just have faith that existence continues aside from our interaction with it; that the intersubjective constitution of reality hinges upon a diversity of perspectives, a diversity of points from whence reality may be constituted by the perceptions of living beings. this is just one way of looking at existence, used as an example which I think greatly obfuscates your statement,Padawan

 

[kpmarine]

also, if you have an idea and it is of sound reasoning, this means nothing for the capacity to persuade others of its validity. thats why we're here right now. some people disagree on what is sound, and what is bullshit. see the problem here?
For example, on some level, according to some phenomenologists, you believe the world still exists when you go to sleep at night, but no one has ever proved that to you: even a video of yourself sleeping is of questionable worth because it can only capture so much of the world. we just have faith that existence continues aside from our interaction with it; that the intersubjective constitution of reality hinges upon a diversity of perspectives, a diversity of points from whence reality may be constituted by the perceptions of living beings. this is just one way of looking at existence, used as an example which I think greatly obfuscates your statement,Padawan

Except in order for the people to disagree on what is sound and is bullshit in relation to this thread, one side has to actually refuse to accept logic and science as a reasonable argument. Take your statement about us going to sleep and taking it on faith that the world is still there. In order to entertain that thought; you would have to decide that many credible people who were not sleeping were lying to you. Surely, if the world ceased to exist in your sleep, someone would have noticed?

 

[Dr.J20]

Except in order for the people to disagree on what is sound and is bullshit in relation to this thread, one side has to actually refuse to accept logic and science as a reasonable argument. Take your statement about us going to sleep and taking it on faith that the world is still there. In order to entertain that thought; you would have to decide that many credible people who were not sleeping were lying to you. Surely, if the world ceased to exist in your sleep, someone would have noticed?

how exactly would someone have noticed that the world still existed while he or she was still sleeping? you see that phenomenological example requires of proof that it be presented to your senses...it is a slightly oblique manner of approaching heisenberg's uncertainty principle (wherein systemic uncertainty is introduced by the understanding that to study a system is to alter that system, making study perpetually just slightly retrospective; we can only say how things just were or predict where an electron would have been had we not disrupted it's path.
so basically, yes, it is radically skeptical to say i think you're all fucking lying to me, if i have to take your facts just because someone else says your smart...see this is where the fetish for proof starts peeling back and revealing its own limitation.

 

[eye exaggerate]

how exactly would someone have noticed that the world still existed while he or she was still sleeping? you see that phenomenological example requires of proof that it be presented to your senses...it is a slightly oblique manner of approaching heisenberg's uncertainty principle (wherein systemic uncertainty is introduced by the understanding that to study a system is to alter that system, making study perpetually just slightly retrospective; we can only say how things just were or predict where an electron would have been had we not disrupted it's path.
so basically, yes, it is radically skeptical to say i think you're all fucking lying to me, if i have to take your facts just because someone else says your smart...see this is where the fetish for proof starts peeling back and revealing its own limitation.

..........

 

[Hepheastus420]

how exactly would someone have noticed that the world still existed while he or she was still sleeping? you see that phenomenological example requires of proof that it be presented to your senses...it is a slightly oblique manner of approaching heisenberg's uncertainty principle (wherein systemic uncertainty is introduced by the understanding that to study a system is to alter that system, making study perpetually just slightly retrospective; we can only say how things just were or predict where an electron would have been had we not disrupted it's path.
so basically, yes, it is radically skeptical to say i think you're all fucking lying to me, if i have to take your facts just because someone else says your smart...see this is where the fetish for proof starts peeling back and revealing its own limitation.

I knew every time I blinked, people would throw a party in front of me that would end before I opened my eyes. I also knew people were lying when they told me that doesn't happen. And I thought they were smart.. Silly me.

 

[cannabineer]

I never maid any claims about god (I dont think lol) just claims that the ancients had advanced knowledge beyond our own. A good example of that is the self explanatory Flower of Life video but the only feedback I got was "blah blah CHERRY PICKING blah blah!"... I dont need to prove god to anyone, only person you need to prove god to is yourself. This beautiful and amazingly complex world proved god to me but even after that I experienced things that cemented my beliefs into facts because my gifted spiritual friend shown me sides to reality that I had no idea existed. I have no faith, thats believing without evidence, I've encountered supernatural evidence multiple times.

(edit) actually I have made claims about god but I dont give two shits if you believe them or not lol it doesnt change whats real.

There is a fine but critical distinction between "self-explanatory" (note hyphen) and "self-promoting". cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

This dude cheif, is a follower of the new age religion of "indigo children" that originated somewhere between 1960's and late 1970's, and just recently since the 2012 mayan prophecy has increased in popularity.

Just google "indigo children" for more information on the beliefs these wacko's hold onto.

Light beings? Really? Comon.... we are animals, no more special than the smallest biological organism, no more special than the smallest atom.

Cheif you are not special... but there (hopefully) will always be people in your life that gives you a sense of being special, but you arent lol, and neither are we.

Nice try to poke some fun at me, got you one like lol. I am familiar with indigo children but the only thing I believe about that is that a lot of people are born with three strands of DNA. And the claims of indigo children did not give birth to new age spirituality, I dont even know what gave birth to new age spirituality, I didnt even know I was a new age spiritualist until six months after I started my spiritual journey. I was angry when I found they put a label onto something I practice.

Doer gave a perfect example with his velvet reference on how you view experiences. "WOW! I just had an experience that is beyond words and is beyond science. BUT, if I try to label it, thats definitely not what it is, no chance! So instead, Im not gunna trust my self, Im going to discus it with a group of like minded people and see if I can use science to solve it because I am THAT dependent on science!". How can you say you are totally honest with yourself if you dont trust yourself?.. To which you'll say "well, I am probably being fooled by my senses there for claiming any meaning to something thats indescribable, I am lying to myself" IOW, "IT DOESNT MEAN I HAVE A SOUL! IM NO GULLIBLE THEIST!".

I know what I know completely by experience, not reading about something and blindly following it, just experience. And the only explanations you guys could come up with to define my experiences is "Oh, well you just witnessed coincidences...Again and again and again and again! one after another, yep, coincidences." OR "your senses were fooling you, over and over and over and OVER again, humans are prone to illusions" and finally "Your either lying, or your crazy, because for you to be telling the truth, that means my idol (science) knows nothing at all, and spirits exist, making this guy in my display picture a fucking idiot"... If you experienced what I have experienced, you would have DEEP inner conflict, this shit would be digging at your soul. The psych ward would be right around the corner for you because you would not be ready to accept such experiences. It would completely destroy your view of the world (WAY more so than it did mine) and you would feel like a lost scared child and WISH you forget what you experienced.

And for the third time, I know I am not special, all living things are equally divine. Some people may have advantages in knowledge and abilities (certainly not atheists, sorry to say, just speakin the truth) but they are not special. Just like you have somewhat of an advantage with that sacred symbol on your back that benefits you in ways you refuse to understand =). Im jealous of that tattoo, I want that sacred symbol and a couple others tattoo'd on me lol.

 

[Padawanbater2]

...I believe about that is that a lot of people are born with three strands of DNA.

Perfect example, why would you believe this if it can be so easily debunked?

Doer gave a perfect example with his velvet reference on how you view experiences. "WOW! I just had an experience that is beyond words and is beyond science. BUT, if I try to label it, thats definitely not what it is, no chance! So instead, Im not gunna trust my self, Im going to discus it with a group of like minded people and see if I can use science to solve it because I am THAT dependent on science!". How can you say you are totally honest with yourself if you dont trust yourself?.. To which you'll say "well, I am probably being fooled by my senses there for claiming any meaning to something thats indescribable, I am lying to myself" IOW, "IT DOESNT MEAN I HAVE A SOUL! IM NO GULLIBLE THEIST!".

Where is the value in sticking the label "GOD dun it!" on something we can't explain? Or saying "it was a UFO!"? What does that add? Most people who say they see UFO's immediately jump onto the ALIENS! bandwagon because they've been conditioned their entire lives by the culture they live in to believe anything they can't identify that's flying MUST BE aliens!

Get a load of this;

[youtube]_no4KQ7xDMM[/youtube]

This guy is absolutely convinced he's seeing a UFO, his sense of sight is LYING to him, convincing his brain he is seeing something he isn't. The reporter and his team set it up so a bunch of big balloons were released a couple miles away in order to TRICK the guy into believing he was seeing a UFO.

All 5 of your senses are susceptible to this exact same process.

After that explanation, you should be able to understand why we view peer review as something absolutely essential to scientific progress.

If you see something you don't understand, it doesn't matter, if you see something you don't understand, write a paper about it, take observations, make calculations, make predictions based on those calculations and come across the exact same thing again as predicted by your calculations and observations, that's science. Trying to skate past this system leads to bunk science and bullshit answers.

Basically, you can't fool thousands of people smarter than yourself who have the ability to test the claims you're making, so if what you present is bullshit, it will quickly be discovered. If on the other hand, each of those thousands of scientists who are smarter than you come to the same conclusions you did, that's science.

I know what I know completely by experience, not reading about something and blindly following it, just experience.

So you don't believe in anything you haven't personally experienced yourself?

And the only explanations you guys could come up with to define my experiences is "Oh, well you just witnessed coincidences...Again and again and again and again! one after another, yep, coincidences." OR "your senses were fooling you, over and over and over and OVER again, humans are prone to illusions" and finally "Your either lying, or your crazy, because for you to be telling the truth, that means my idol (science) knows nothing at all, and spirits exist, making this guy in my display picture a fucking idiot"... If you experienced what I have experienced, you would have DEEP inner conflict, this shit would be digging at your soul. The psych ward would be right around the corner for you because you would not be ready to accept such experiences. It would completely destroy your view of the world (WAY more so than it did mine) and you would feel like a lost scared child and WISH you forget what you experienced.

Why don't you speak to a psychiatrist about these issues and actually get a professional opinion? Would you simply disregard anything s/he said because their practice is based in science?

 

[kpmarine]

how exactly would someone have noticed that the world still existed while he or she was still sleeping? you see that phenomenological example requires of proof that it be presented to your senses...it is a slightly oblique manner of approaching heisenberg's uncertainty principle (wherein systemic uncertainty is introduced by the understanding that to study a system is to alter that system, making study perpetually just slightly retrospective; we can only say how things just were or predict where an electron would have been had we not disrupted it's path.
so basically, yes, it is radically skeptical to say i think you're all fucking lying to me, if i have to take your facts just because someone else says your smart...see this is where the fetish for proof starts peeling back and revealing its own limitation.

You don't take someone's word because someone told you to, that would be foolish. Facts remain facts, regardless of who presents them though. I see no limitation to demanding evidence of something; unless you mean it would limit people's ability to make decisions based on what makes them "feel good".

 

[afrawfraw]

I have no interest in what one delusional entity thinks it sees. My senses and thought processes are fallible. So I don't trust what I perceive, however "real" it may seem. Manipulate my emotions, manipulate my perception. Who can I trust? A practice which seeks information only. A population of all faiths and backgrounds, drawn together to discover common truths. Can I say, "There's no god."? Of course not. I can only say that everyone who looked at the problem, discovered we don't have enough information. So "?" will have to do for now.

Too stoned to type this out again. Meh.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Perfect example, why would you believe this if it can be so easily debunked?



Where is the value in sticking the label "GOD dun it!" on something we can't explain? Or saying "it was a UFO!"? What does that add? Most people who say they see UFO's immediately jump onto the ALIENS! bandwagon because they've been conditioned their entire lives by the culture they live in to believe anything they can't identify that's flying MUST BE aliens!

Get a load of this;

[youtube]_no4KQ7xDMM[/youtube]

This guy is absolutely convinced he's seeing a UFO, his sense of sight is LYING to him, convincing his brain he is seeing something he isn't. The reporter and his team set it up so a bunch of big balloons were released a couple miles away in order to TRICK the guy into believing he was seeing a UFO.

All 5 of your senses are susceptible to this exact same process.

After that explanation, you should be able to understand why we view peer review as something absolutely essential to scientific progress.

If you see something you don't understand, it doesn't matter, if you see something you don't understand, write a paper about it, take observations, make calculations, make predictions based on those calculations and come across the exact same thing again as predicted by your calculations and observations, that's science. Trying to skate past this system leads to bunk science and bullshit answers.

Basically, you can't fool thousands of people smarter than yourself who have the ability to test the claims you're making, so if what you present is bullshit, it will quickly be discovered. If on the other hand, each of those thousands of scientists who are smarter than you come to the same conclusions you did, that's science.



So you don't believe in anything you haven't personally experienced yourself?



Why don't you speak to a psychiatrist about these issues and actually get a professional opinion? Would you simply disregard anything s/he said because their practice is based in science?

Really Pad? You honestly think you made good argument? Gimme a break man. I dont know where UFO's came from but people who dont believe aliens visit us are seriously deluding themselves. You sure take your time to respond to me for someone who doesnt take me seriously at all. Why would I need to see a psychiatrist? Im happy, happy with my experiences and happy with what I know. You could say Im being more honest with myself by not seeing a psychiatrist or any other professional to discuss my experiences. And since theres no argument from you there I take it that what I said are your only explanations for my experiences... And if Im the troll your talking about, then your only feeding my satisfaction with your long winded regurgitated scientific bullshit lol. So keep it coming I guess =)

 

[Padawanbater2]

Really Pad? You honestly think you made good argument?

Seeing as there was no attempt to counter any of the points I made, I'm going to go ahead and conclude the argument was valid.

Gimme a break man. I dont know where UFO's came from but people who dont believe aliens visit us are seriously deluding themselves.

Where is the physical evidence that suggests aliens have visited the Earth?

You sure take your time to respond to me for someone who doesnt take me seriously at all.

It doesn't take me long at all.

Why would I need to see a psychiatrist? Im happy, happy with my experiences and happy with what I know. You could say Im being more honest with myself by not seeing a psychiatrist or any other professional to discuss my experiences.

Denial.

And since theres no argument from you there I take it that what I said are your only explanations for my experiences... And if Im the troll your talking about, then your only feeding my satisfaction with your long winded regurgitated scientific bullshit lol. So keep it coming I guess =)

Rational arguments don't work on irrational people.

And take a 'Trolls gon' Troll...' for the road.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Seeing as there was no attempt to counter any of the points I made, I'm going to go ahead and conclude the argument was valid.



Where is the physical evidence that suggests aliens have visited the Earth?



It doesn't take me long at all.



Denial.



Rational arguments don't work on irrational people.

And take a 'Trolls gon' Troll...' for the road.

You feel that I am irrational yet you still throw regurgitated "rational" arguments in my face lol keep it coming pad =)

 

[Padawanbater2]

You feel that I am irrational yet you still throw regurgitated "rational" arguments in my face lol keep it coming pad =)

It's not for you, it's for anyone reading along. Go look back through this thread alone, I saw multiple mentions of a skeptical mindset having impacted people in some way.

Your type of thinking helps illustrate how irrational a persons mind can be, given certain circumstances, which are exposed with each reply.

So yeah, at least you're contributing that​, eh...