a challenge to those who feel intelligent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

You guys in this thread are all such fucking hardliners. Religion is the opiate of the masses (Marx) but I guess personally I fail to see the difference between pouring your faith into religion, or science, or causality, or belief in my own existence, etc...

---

This is a "straw man". Can you show where someone did that? Put his "faith" in science in the same way that believers put their faith in their religion? I get the feeling, from previous remarks that you have been itching to get this off your chest the entire debate and now you shot your wad prematurely - this the sticky underpants fallacy:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

The form of logic is that if the premises are true then the conclusion is inescapable. Just remember that we assume all our premises.
Of course you assume smoking weed will have certain effects, you should read something by David Hume.

Structured forms build categorical systems on a floating foundation...

---

This is an attempt to muddy the waters. Of course all human knowledge is uncertain - thats the human condition - doubt.

ויאמר לא תוכל לראת את פני כי לא יראני האדם וחי

And he (God) said, You cannot see my face - for man shall not see me and live. (2nd book 33)

Moses is asking for certainty - and God is telling him that he cannot have that while he lives.

God goes on to explain that Moses is just going to have to settle for peep of Gods beehind.

Check it out. Its a beautiful moving passage about the doubt that all men must accept.

Just because you have doubt doesnt mean that all bets are equal. Did you ever play poker? Its essentially a game about managing uncertainty - managing it more skillyfully than your opponents. Just because all men men have a weakness does not mean that all men are weak.

Sure you can doubt the very foundations of knowledge, the underpinnings of math and science. And you should! That doesnt mean they are discredited or even that they are the equivalent of all other forms of knowledge.

Ok so you might really be just a brain in a vat. Do you pay your electric bill or not?

ur all dumb cuz god is easily found through meditation and the knowledge that people have gained through meditation. religion is fake and god tries to make every single persons religion seem real cuz he loves us, but in the end, what god is is beyond any thing like a religion, god is truely purely just the root soul of us all that has all the knowledge of everything we see and everything we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

Just because you have doubt doesnt mean that all bets are equal. Did you ever play poker? Its essentially a game about managing uncertainty - managing it more skillyfully than your opponents. Just because all men men have a weakness does not mean that all men are weak.

Sure you can doubt the very foundations of knowledge, the underpinnings of math and science. And you should! That doesnt mean they are discredited or even that they are the equivalent of all other forms of knowledge.

Ok so you might really be just a brain in a vat. Do you pay your electric bill or not?

---

Absolutely I pay my bills. Even Hume said at the end of the day, I set aside my doubts and go play badmitton with my friends. Odd one Hume. I guess my point being that when people interpret biblical texts literally and assume the have the Truth, in a capital T sort of way please note, they tend to become fundamentalist assholes who think it's ok to bomb people for thinking something else. Obviously any absolute outlook is going to have problems in this sense. Likewise I think anyone who restricts existence to the physical, lacks both inspiration and imagination. Keep an open mind, and don't think that just because your system is empirical you're getting Truth (capital) out of it.

As for religion, I'll just say, contrary to poker, the human weakness in all humans is the groundwork for compassion, not exploitation. I don't rely on causal or quantum connections in order to be a moral person. Whether or not there is a spiritual connection between all people, I behave as if there is. Whether or not my existence is predetermined or not, I behave as if I have freedom. I behave as if I should pay my bills rather than just lounge around in my vat.

What would you do?


ps ~ I don't see it as a straw man. I hardly built it into much, and never represented it as a statement of your views. You could make a case for it being an example of equivocation. But I think it stands. But it's all bullshit to you isn't it? Why should you have to know anything about logical standards when you deal with Science afterall :thumbsup:

Sorry, just had to add this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

Can you show where someone did that? Put his "faith" in science in the same way that believers put their faith in their religion?

---

What do you even mean? I see people putting their faith in science on a daily basis. I do it myself. I'm fucking using a computer to post on the internet right now. Aren't I? Case in point.

Or do you mean cases where things obviously went hidiously wrong? Cases like Hitler and his biological experiments on the Jewish people? Or Chernobyl?

Oh wait, the scientists who do horrible things aren't really scientists. Just like the crusades wasn't really "Christians". At least, not as Christians would like to think of themselves.

As a scientist, are you hoping to discover what's out there? Or are you hoping to prove you already know something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

.... I guess my point being that when people interpret biblical texts literally and assume the have the Truth, in a capital T sort of way please note, they tend to become fundamentalist assholes who think it's ok to bomb people for thinking something else. Obviously any absolute outlook is going to have problems in this sense. Likewise I think anyone who restricts existence to the physical, lacks both inspiration and imagination. Keep an open mind, and don't think that just because your system is empirical you're getting Truth (capital) out of it.

---

Dogmatism is for fools. Dogma may seem attactive but it can really bite you in the ass , haw haw haw! One should never, ever be dogmatic... uh ... wait a second...

As for Truth with a capital T there isnt much of that in Science. Science is mostly about doubt, the skillful constructive use of doubt - not certainty. Very few important scientific results are "proved". Even the "Law of Gravitation" is just a theory and could, at least in principle be overturned. In fact the hope is that it will!

Just because I dont accept the existence of a spiritual world doesnt mean I closed minded about it Look, what's your position on Unicorns? or Bigfoot? Well mine is this, show me convincing evidence and I will accept their existence but until then, I conduct my life as if those things dont exist. I wont buy leather goods claiming to be unicorn hide . I wont waste my time and money going on a wild BigFoot chase, not on the strength of what we know at this time - this is a skeptical approach. You make the best decision you can based on the facts and tools that you have available - if later you get an opportunity to revise that decision, you jump at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

.... As for religion, I'll just say, contrary to poker, the human weakness in all humans is the groundwork for compassion, not exploitation.

---

admirable but irrelevant. The point of that example was just to show that uncertainty can be handled intelligently - it does not oblige you to throw up your hands and say - all outcomes are uncertain therefore we have no way of making a decision and going forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

.... I don't rely on causal or quantum connections in order to be a moral person. Whether or not there is a spiritual connection between all people, I behave as if there is.

---

I have no idea what this means or how it connects to our discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

.... I behave as if I should pay my bills rather than just lounge around in my vat.

What would you do?

---

Damn, man! I am a brain in a vat. If I dont pay my electric bill they pull the plug on me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

.... ps ~ I don't see it as a straw man. I hardly built it into much, and never represented it as a statement of your views.

---

this is bullshit - you are shifting your ground!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

....
Originally Posted by Polymirize
You guys in this thread are all such fucking hardliners. Religion is the opiate of the masses (Marx) but I guess personally I fail to see the difference between pouring your faith into religion, or science, or causality, or belief in my own existence, etc...

---

(text accents are mine)

polymirize, what does..putting faith into sience have to do with you using your computer to type on these forums? well IF you get on your comp GET on the internet,TYPE on these forums, hell you're using your computer for that. where does faith go into there...? do you guess everytime you hit the power button that the comp will turn on? no duh it'll turn on cuz you KNOW it will turn on, has nothing to do with faith.. but putting faith in something with no prooof, existing "before" dragons existed...how do you explain....anything right about that? but all you live for is to do right things cuz god said so..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

What do you even mean? I see people putting their faith in science on a daily basis. I do it myself. I'm fucking using a computer to post on the internet right now. Aren't I? Case in point.

---

Theres a problem here - the word faith means many different things - I hate using either "faith" or "belief" in these discussions its treacherously slippery. Faith in a working tool is not at all the same thing as religous faith

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

Or do you mean cases where things obviously went hidiously wrong? Cases like Hitler and his biological experiments on the Jewish people? Or Chernobyl?

---

Either this is careless or you are very confused about what science is. Firstly what is the connection between Chernobyl and science? What scientific questions were being investigated - other than perhaps how many corners can you cut and for how long. Mengele however might have been real science. I dont know anything about the value of the research in its own terms but certainly persuing scientific inquiry through human vivesection is perfectly valid scientifically. Science it totally amoral like plumbing. There were plumbers who helped run and build the death camps - how does this reflect on plumbing? When your sink is blocked do you call a plumber (hey those guys participated in Auschwitz) or do you call a priest?


You keep firing these bolts at targets that dont exist and I feel as if you are trying to have a discussion with someone who is not here. No one here is proposing blind faith in science or that science can answer all the questions that we need to ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

Oh wait, the scientists who do horrible things aren't really scientists. Just like the crusades wasn't really "Christians". At least, not as Christians would like to think of themselves.

As a scientist, are you hoping to discover what's out there? Or are you hoping to prove you already know something?

---

Thats a straw man :thumbsup:

Again, science is a method of investigation. It is most effective in the physical world. It has no direct bearing on moral conduct or any of the existential questions that torment man. Its like plumbing - there are good plumbers and there are evil plumbers - so what?

My point is you're setting science on a pedestal by saying that science never leads us "wrong".
I agree with you when you say it has absolutely no moral implications, and since the notion of this entire thread was to demonstrate something about religion (or perhaps, as I'm trying to work with here, religious principles), why are we even talking about science again?
I agree (assuming I'm understanding you now, no promises) that science, the verifiable (and more importantly, falsifiable) source of empirical data can't tell us anything about how to live.
And yet, do you know how to live?

In a very real sense, I just want to know... how are you doing?


ps~ I'll agree, that last part is more rhetoric and jibing rather than logical valid, but no, it's still not a strawman argument.
A strawman argument is where I build a position similar to yours but with obvious deficienties and then tear it down. But in order to really get a strawman argument it would still require more of a build up, and probably a lot of "you say/said X". In short, misrepresentation. Have I supplied hard to think about analogies? Yes. Misrepresented your own position? I don't think so...

You should like, learn some philosophy and stuff man...:stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TipTIP

polymirize, what does..putting faith into sience have to do with you using your computer to type on these forums? well IF you get on your comp GET on the internet,TYPE on these forums, hell you're using your computer for that. where does faith go into there...? do you guess everytime you hit the power button that the comp will turn on? no duh it'll turn on cuz you KNOW it will turn on, has nothing to do with faith.. but putting faith in something with no prooof, existing "before" dragons existed...how do you explain....anything right about that? but all you live for is to do right things cuz god said so..

---

How is it you KNOW, that the future will always resemble the past?

How do you KNOW, when you push that button, that your computer will turn on, as opposed to remaining off. Maybe it's broken, maybe its out of power, maybe god just plain hates you.

Are there limits to KNOWLEDGE? and if so, when we go beyond them, what else would we call it other than FAITH? Faith that the future will resemble the past even perhaps?

I guess my main point would just be to get a couple of the people out there to admit that yes, we all take some things on faith, because then this entire development of religion (or perhaps, religiousness? spirituality?) angle becomes merely a matter of degree...

Do you follow all that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

My point is you're setting science on a pedestal by saying that science never leads us "wrong".

---

well if I said that I didnt mean it. I do have a high regard for scientific thought, I do think it is much underappreciated and mistunderstood among the lay public. I do think that in many cases it is by a long shot our best bet at understanding our circumstances? But never lead us wrong - noooo. Science has no way of even knowing when we do have the right answer. There is no cosmic answer book that we can check our results again only observations that either support or contradict our theories. Science is designed to get it wrong and keep improving. But it has no way of telling for sure that you actually are at the end of your quest and there will be no conflicting inexplicable observations in the future. There is no human knowledge that is free from doubt. ".. for no man shall see me and live"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

I agree (assuming I'm understanding you now, no promises) that science,...can't tell us anything about how to live.
And yet, do you know how to live?

In a very real sense, I just want to know... how are you doing?

---

The quick answer is that I muddle through just like everyone else. No one has the manual. I think being a human being is an aburd thing. Absurd in a deep philosophical sense. I used to be a religious fanatic. When I started to get over that in my 30's I realized that I had swallowed lot of bullshit - much of it foisted on me by my very own self. I resolved to cut out the bullshit as much as possible - with mixed success. Bullshit is inescapable and sometimes even necessary. I cultivated a rather blunt, irreverant manner - others call it an "asshole". I believe that every man must find his own reason for living and that this is an intensely private matter - no other man will ever be able to judge or even fully understand this decision - to that extent I am an Existentialist. For me life is about the living of it. I try to figure out what things I really want to and to go after them without worrying whether they are important, appropriate or whether it all amounts to anything.

Being an atheist is a cold and lonely thing in many ways. You must confront the fact of your imminent death without any warm blanket or comfort that religion can offer. Death for an atheist is intensely personal and intensely lonely. But with this comes an exhilerating sense of release and freedom. My life is mine to do with as I wish and as I can.

I have found nothing that even begins to explain the way it feels to be a man and to know that I am a man. But I feel strongly, and this is a scientific idea, that one should not try to dispel mysteries with stories. Its ok not to know even though it is a torment.

This thread is a head fuck when you're high :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

The quick answer is that I muddle through just like everyone else. No one has the manual. I think being a human being is an aburd thing. Absurd in a deep philosophical sense. I used to be a religious fanatic. When I started to get over that in my 30's I realized that I had swallowed lot of bullshit - much of it foisted on me by my very own self. I resolved to cut out the bullshit as much as possible - with mixed success. Bullshit is inescapable and sometimes even necessary. I cultivated a rather blunt, irreverant manner - others call it an "asshole". I believe that every man must find his own reason for living and that this is an intensely private matter - no other man will ever be able to judge or even fully understand this decision - to that extent I am an Existentialist. For me life is about the living of it. I try to figure out what things I really want to and to go after them without worrying whether they are important, appropriate or whether it all amounts to anything.

Being an atheist is a cold and lonely thing in many ways. You must confront the fact of your imminent death without any warm blanket or comfort that religion can offer. Death for an atheist is intensely personal and intensely lonely. But with this comes an exhilerating sense of release and freedom. My life is mine to do with as I wish and as I can.

I have found nothing that even begins to explain the way it feels to be a man and to know that I am a man. But I feel strongly, and this is a scientific idea, that one should not try to dispel mysteries with stories. Its ok not to know even though it is a torment.

---

First off. I think I agree whole-heartedly. Being comfortable over 40 fathoms isn't easy. But it's all there is unless you want to lie to yourself. My own outlook is fairly existentialist as well. I alone have complete creative power over, and complete responsibility for, my own life.
Now here's my follow up question. How can you look into the sea of human faces, knowing full well that they're all facing the same existential abyss, whether they face it openly or not, and not feel empathy and compassion for them? To change your own quote to a slightly more honest variation: "being a Human Being is a cold and lonely thing in many ways". But we're all in this together, some shared human existential experience. thats what makes it existential, afterall.

what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

... How can you look into the sea of human faces, knowing full well that they're all facing the same existential abyss, whether they face it openly or not, and not feel empathy and compassion for them? To change your own quote to a slightly more honest variation: "being a Human Being is a cold and lonely thing in many ways". But we're all in this together, some shared human existential experience. thats what makes it existential, afterall. what do you think?

---

I feel the same way :)

so... would that be like, demonstrating religious principles?

Did I just win the thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

Did I just win the thread?

---

Hehe - its boring when people agree - war can be much more productive than peace ;)

IIRC there have been three main attempts


#1 "Fuck you guys! I know whats right"

I kinda liked this guy - if you think about it, it has a certain consistency. Its mainly about the strength of private knowledge. Anyway at least he didnt waste a lot of time here - :D

#2 Attempts at direct proofs

These all have to make a lot of very questionable assumptions, assumptions that really cant be glossed over with "we can all agree that". They dont get off the ground

#3 We dont really know much so how should we go about things?

IMO this is the most productive approach, if done honestly and intelligently - its not a license for fuzzy sentimental thinking. But, the main challenge of this thread is "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" (I would prefer "prove to a strong certainty" or even just "to a preponderance of the evidence" but #3 basically throws in the towel on all those and says "yer right, its impossible. Now what?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SensiRide

This thread is a head fuck when you're high :stoned:

---

lol i was trying to fish through the thesaurus enhanced bullshit, but after a couple of minutes my eyes just lost focus so I said fuck it and decided to tack on a post for myself

(why should they get all the fun:dance: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

Hehe - its boring when people agree - war can be much more productive than peace ;)

---

Maybe, but only if you can pay the high cost of resources. I don't think we'll have them for much longer in the manner that we do now, assuming things continue to go the way they are going. And when we consider the human cost of it. Then no, we find we've never been able to afford it really.
War sets resources against resources. Money is spent against money. Weapons used against weapons. Rather than peacefully contributing resources. At least there would be less waste.

Second: I agree about direct proof. I've spent posts agreeing. So what is it about science or religion or ontology or language that's different from "so we all agree that X"?

I don't consider any of this to be wasting time because it gives me the chance to ponder it all. I don't expect to derive any answer but there's some quality to the questioning itself that feels like stretching. It's healthy. Open minds are a good thing.
Is it a productive approach? Does it produce anything real that could be measured or calculated? No. Consciousness is still free of the tyranny of physicalism. And can we know it? Perhaps we can only approach its unknowable-ness

For many philosophers, morality is the derived from Pure Reason. A self-examination, free of empirical impressions.

Do you need to count objects to know that 2+3=5?
Are you aware that a triangle's angles will equal 180 degrees without having to measure them?
The necessity of a triangles properties do not demonstrate the necessity of triangles, but you might find it interesting to think about...

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).

6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

There you have it

lol, hmmm? if the power's out, then the powers out, i KNOW it won't turn on if the powers out or the comps broken, but knowing the comp isn't, or the powers not out, it will turn on. fact, not some sort of miracle that hey everytime i seem to push this button, the comp turns on? that's a work of god! no it's science dimwit. common sense, use the other side of your brain.

I can prove my religeon beyond a reasonable doubt..first get a gun..aim from temple to temple..and pull the trigger.. there! proven!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TipTIP

lol, hmmm? if the power's out, then the powers out, i KNOW it won't turn on if the powers out or the comps broken, but knowing the comp isn't, or the powers not out, it will turn on. fact, not some sort of miracle that hey everytime i seem to push this button, the comp turns on? that's a work of god! no it's science dimwit. common sense, use the other side of your brain.

---

I'm going to ask a question with the most sincere and honest tone I can, and I apoligize if it comes out mildly offensive, but...

are you like 17 years old or are you just stupid?

Monkeys can flip switches... Can you reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heads all empty

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).

6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

There you have it

---

pretty good but:
1. a perfect being can not be conceived. a perfect being is omnipotent, but omnipotence is logically impossible (does an omnipotent being have the power to become more powerful? either way, they aren't omnipotent). we can't concieve how a being would complete an insurmountable task, therefore we can't conceive such a being.
2. why must perfection exist in reality? a perfect square in thought wouldn't become more perfect if such an object could be created in reality.

Every single human is perfect in god's eyes even serial killers, rapists ect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PureEvil760

Every single human is perfect in god's eyes even serial killers, rapists ect.

---

he just doesn't want to admit his mistakes.

My personal opinions:

there is no god but yourself.

if you are suffering, you don't hit your knees and ask for divine guidance and expect a miracle out of nowhere-- we have our own minds and are capable of working out our problems. it's the same situation in any case. whether you hit your knees in prayer or sit in a lotus posture in silent meditation, the motive is always the same--to gain awareness, to gain insight. for guidance, for a power "outside of yourself" . i'm a buddhist in philosophy, because I recognize that in order to gain this "outside insight", i do not need the help of any god. there is no god but yourself. even in a judeo-christian point of view, the idea is that one must first search for god to gain insight (the phrase "jesus is knocking at your door , let him in to dine with you" comes to mind, making a reference to the fact that jesus is trying to come into your life, but first you must seek it). it's not the work of god that is changing your life in religion, people. it's the mere fact that you are seeking to make a positive and insightful change in your own life. that's the enlightenment. while one might compare this to being "in the holy spirit" from a christian standpoint, the feeling which most religions offer people is very possibly the same.

if you think about it, buddhism offers enlightenment. islam offers submission. christianity offers salvation. all of these religions claim to save your life in one form of another. this is what unites religions-the fact that we are searching for something outside of ourself, be it a personal relationship with god or just our own personal insight. To a greater extent, a muslim may feel as "spiritual" (i.e. tranquil, happy, joyous) with his religion , as a christian might with his. the general idea is that all religions give us, the HUMAN, the same "feeling", the same experience, and this feeling is the result of chemicals being released in our brains (endorphins).

in my opinion, spiritualilty in general is very similar among all religions--the only difference is in religious doctrine/creed. however i do believe that the actual feeling that accompanies spirituality is the same. whether you are meditating, praying to Allah, sitting with a guru, or reading scripture from the bible, religion does the same things for people in general-- it gives a sense of well-being and comfort, joy. perhaps that's why karl marx called religion the "opiate of the masses".

in a sense we could compare spirituality to a natural drug, in the sense that when we are feeling "spiritual", what we are really experiencing is endorphins being released in the brain ( which is necessary to produce this feeling, as any feeling one experiences is the result of certain chemical reactions occuring in the brain).

to put it in another sense, we could say that religion makes us feel good. it gives us peace of mind, tranquility, reassurance--it helps us affirm our self. it helps us feel well. so does heroin :) interestingly, this is the result of chemical processes in the brain--similar to how a drug might work on the brain. The universalness of spirituality is what unites all religions--we all feel the same "high" on religion, if you will--a high of well-being and happyness, assurance.... "holyness".

when one takes a drug like heroin, a feeling of well-being comes over the person. and this is because endorphins are being released in the brain. and when christians are feeling the holy spirit, obviously endorphins are being released in their brains-- so much that it is enough to cause laughing, crying, etc. i observe this and conclude that these people could only be "high on the holy spirit", or otherwise "high off their religion". Indeed, the holy spirit could very well be re-created as a chemical compound, a drug if you will. when ingested, this "holy spirit" drug might produce effects similar to those of a religious experience. But i'm not a pharmacologist, and i'm not a psychiatrist, nor a neurologist. I'm just pointing out the fact that every emotion we feel is the result of chemical change in the brain, so perhaps with this knowledge , a drug could be created which would "simulate" the effects of spirituality, or re-create the religious experience because every emotion we feel is a result of chemical change in the mind. thus after ingesting this drug, one might experience or re-live a religious experience. more than likely though, it would just throw you into psychosis.

enough deep thoughs now, and off i go to smoke my bowl, pop my melatonin and sleep :) think about it.

ahhh fuck i just wrote a fucking essay for this , and the fucking browser FUCKED IT UP. i hate computers they are the worst fucking thing since the television!! FUCK.