Thread: February 1, 2019...

>there "might" be a giant invisable elephant floating above my head.<

No there can't unless we change the properties of the states of matter.

1. This elephent would need to be the excect same tempurture of the air around it.

and the second most astonishing thing
2. It would require that light did not bend, anything can pass throuh it, not to have a color, or various other properties. For this to hapen the elephant would need to be made of air and at last time I cheaked air expands to fit it's container, and so you really can't make something from it.

Clyde...

I can assure you my ignorantly rational friend that my beliefs are based upon the many ancient and wise religions and philosophies of humanity, as well as western sciences. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Psychology, Physics all contribute to my core beliefs.

Is it rational to assume that only one school of thought holds the answers to life and the universe? Is it rational to make assumptions that other theories are wrong, when there is so much that one cannot and will not account for? Look at our evolution - I believe that Charles Darwin was 100% correct in his assumptions; however, he quite properly neglected the spiritual side of humanity and nature which most rational people tend to do. The spirituality of nature and humanity cannot be denied. You are also ignoring the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. What do you think our bodies consist of? Energy of course! But what energy am I talking about? Love. It is the basis for why we are here.

Believe what you want to believe, but you will know that I am right once you realise there is more than just what your senses can observe.

>>the islamic religion is based on the idea of bringing civilization to barbarians. how was this done? not through the pursuit of common sense, but the pursuit of a religious life.<<

No Islam is not a religion - it is a race of people. You can be Islamic, and not a Muslim (which is a religion).

"So Clyde's mocking of others beliefs is totally justified, because if his ideas are rejected by the rest of society they wont be addapted by society and will die out"

An interesting way of looking at it, i do not think my ideas will die out the rationalist always win out, given enough time.

"i can see your point. my argument is just that a focus on all things logical does not make logic happen. people are weird, and others have to act weirdly to make people listen. some things, like religion, are harmless to most people."

But you see i think it does make "logic happen" as you put it, i think you do have to fight off irrationality if you want society to progress. Religion might well be harmless to most people, but it is not harmless on a global scale, and it is impossible to fight religion in some cases but not others, because the fight is based upon the reasoning behind the beliefs, that reasoning is the same whether in the "harmless" cases or in the extreme ones.

To give you an example of how benign beliefs can easily lead to problems: By all accounts Bin Laden's parents were fairly moderate people, and yet by virtue of their irrational beleifs.... well we all know what happened.

"the islamic religion is based on the idea of bringing civilization to barbarians. how was this done? not through the pursuit of common sense, but the pursuit of a religious life."

Islam........ i know much about islam, because my girlfriends family live in Pakistan and are islamic fundamentalists, and my best friend at university was a prettty strongly religious muslim (whem i met him), Islam like many religions constricts people, stops them thinking, don't question, shut and believe. Oh some the things that these people have told..... it just blows you mind. Anyway thats somewhat by-the-by.

Now don't get me wrong, there are no doubt examples in almost every religion of GOOD that has come of it, but the bad SO outweighs the good, most cases of "good" that are assigned to religion are in-fact dubious assignments, charities like the red cross do a huge amount of good in the world, and yet would the people in the red cross be in another charity if the red cross didn't exist? By all accounts probably.

The pain, suffering, and ignorance caused by religion far FAR outweighs the occasional benefit it may cause.

"No there can't unless we change the properties of the states of matter.

1. This elephent would need to be the excect same tempurture of the air around it.

and the second most astonishing thing
2. It would require that light did not bend, anything can pass throuh it, not to have a color, or various other properties. For this to hapen the elephant would need to be made of air and at last time I cheaked air expands to fit it's container, and so you really can't make something from it."

You are working on the ASSUMPTION that our sense's are not fake, that you are not living in a big dream world, in which case anything can happen. Ridiculous? Of course, but not "impossible".

This id all Decarte's stuff: the ONLY think you can EVER be 100% sure of is that while "you" (thats actually been changed, but i wont get into it here), are thinking "you" exist.

"I can assure you my ignorantly rational friend that my beliefs are based upon the many ancient and wise religions and philosophies of humanity"

The words "wise" and "religion" should never be used in the same sentence (unless you're pointing out that they shouldn't be used in the same sentence, as i am here, then they can be ).

"Is it rational to assume that only one school of thought holds the answers to life and the universe?"

School of thought? People who believe in irrational arguments clutch at concepts that don't actually mean anything.

Its very simple, the only way to determine the world around us is through logical deduction. Now you might be thinking "how narrow minded", "how arrogant" "blah, blah, blah", but just think a moment about what the alternative actually means, that you can determine the world around us through illogic? Like what random guesses?

It is irrational to believe in something unless it is supported by evidence, or it can be derived from a theory supported by evidence. I do not believe there is an elephant floating above my head: no evidence, i do believe there is a computer sitting in front of me: evidence, i do not believe there is a magic psychic energy faff: no evidence, i do believe that haemoglobin transports oxygen around the blood stream in red blood-cells: evidence.

"I believe that Charles Darwin was 100% correct in his assumptions; however, he quite properly neglected the spiritual side of humanity and nature which most rational people tend to do"

What spiritual side? For a start I bet you can't even tell me what spiritual actually is.

Where is the evidence for it? It does NOT exist, every feeling you ever experience is the result of neurones firing in your head.

Van Gogh, became EXTREMELY religious during the later period of his life, he visited church every day of the week, he became a practicing priest, do you know why? Because he developed temporal epilepsy, the temporal lobe is slightly behind the temples, when it is stimulated using magnetic fields in a closed environment recipients say they feel they are in some great presence, they feel strong emotions, errie feelings, etc. etc. Spiritual? NOPE a part of the brain that starts behaving poorly.

The brain does funky stuff, when people have strange "experiences", its because of the brain.

When the brain is starved of oxygen , the neurones start of fire in a pseudo random pattern, and large amounts of seriotin and other hormones are released, because of the density of neurones arranged in the brain the recipients observe what seems to be a white light in the centre of their vision, which often feels like a tunnel, they always feel basked in warmth and happyness as serotonin floods their brains, after life? Spiritual? NOPE the brain.

"You are also ignoring the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. What do you think our bodies consist of? Energy of course! But what energy am I talking about? Love. It is the basis for why we are here."

*stares*........... god damnit, see this kind of UTTER nonsense just ........es me off, do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? ENERGY cannot be destroyed, do you know what energy is? Its the potential to do work, it can take many forms, kinetic, gravitaional potential, chemical. i can write you the formula for some of them if you want. LOVE on the other hand is an evolved reponse that keeps parents together to benefit their offspring.

Love is NOT energy, love and energy are COMPETELY different chalk and cheese have more in common.

"Believe what you want to believe, but you will know that I am right once you realise there is more than just what your senses can observe. "

I'm well aware there is alot more than my senses can observe, that doesn't alter the fact that your REASONING, as in the REASONS you believe what you do is UTTERLY UTTERLY flawed.

I can't observe wavelengths of light smaller then 400 nanometres, or larger than 700 nanometres i can't observe electrons, protons, quarks, i can't hear sound in the ultrasonic range, i even see the air. Just because we cannot observe through the senses various attributes of the world around us does NOT mean we should just randomly guess! We should attempt to DEDUCE how, and why and what things are, and you know what that means? LOGIC.

"No Islam is not a religion - it is a race of people. You can be Islamic, and not a Muslim (which is a religion)."

I'm fairly sure Islam is a religion. The jews are a race, but i don't think Islam is.

"But, because of the things I've experienced (It has nothing to do with my presence or absense of knowledge.) I can't side with your arguments"

What have you experienced? And what makes you think your experiences are not explainable? People can see and hear all kinds of crazy things that aren't actually there (like our friend Van Gogh), in the end REAL analysis counts for a lot more than personal experience.

"So, try reading stealth's posts and really analyze them and think about it"

I have done so.

"You might just see his argument; I'm not saying you'll side with him, but you might just understand why he's arguing what he's arguing. "

I do see his argument, I have seen irrational arguments before, many many times. I have watched people stick to ridiculous ideas again and again and again. What happens is I point out that their reasoning is flawed, they attempt to refute my critique and inevitably fail, now at this point the RATIONAL thing to do would be to accept that the conclusions drawn were infact false, but heavens no the brain is already wired up; they "know" their conclusion is "right", so instead they construct another line of pseudo-reasoning as equally flawed as the first to defend their views, and of course i knock that one down, and so up comes another, and another, and they get more and more ........ed off......

Now the plus side is that sometimes they go away and actually THINK about the arguments instead of rattling off the same nonsense, normally because they are ........ed off that they get dominated in teh debates that they want revenge.... well thats great I make them think, and sometimes as result they come round.

My best friend at uni HATED me for a year at school, absolutely LOATHED me, but i forced him to think and now i'm proud to say he's an atheist and a reasonable part of why is me.

Most people struggle to analyse information unless specifically taught to do so. He has come across a series of ideas that he's thought were "nice" or sounded "right", but he hasn't analysed in any meaningfull fashion, asked "Where are you getting your info from" or "what proof is there" or "how can this be when x.. y.. and z... all point away from it".

How can you not see his argument is flawed? For a start he is applying the conservation of energy to something which is not energy, which just wrong, no two ways about it: wrong.

His rational is flawed, hence his conclusions are meaningless, the only difference between him and one of my stoned friends is thats its socially acceptable to say my stoned friends are talking nonsense, but its no socially acceptable to point out that he is talking nonsense.

People are hung up over "beliefs", if something is a "belief" it suddenly gains new found respect, whether it merits it or not.

"My experience(s) were internal realizations; they had no connection with the outside world through senses at all. Unfortunately, I can't explain it. I know you're really gonna rip me for this, too."

..........

"I truely, truely wish I could put it into an intelligible form that other people could understand, but I can't. It's impossible for me to put it into an intelligible form that I can even understand on a second level."

Second level.......?

You can FEEL things, all kinds of weird and wonderfull things, because the BRAIN, can do funky things. Why do you assume the your experiences MEAN anything?

"Blah, I tried to explain but failed miserably. Just know that it is stronger than any argument you can ever put on the table. Hopefully one day, you can perceive it. I really hope you can. "

Stronger? What does that mean? These words, your description they don't mean anything, so you felt something....... and? What exactly can you conclude from that, and why?

"I never mentioned anything about social acceptablility. I did say that it's pretty messed up to make fun of someone for their beliefs. And it is"

Of course you didn't and yet that is what is speaking, not you, but the voice of social acceptability, you but its puppet.

"Having an opinion on another's opinion is fine and dandy, but making offensive comments is not. "

I dont give a damn about offending people, they'll get over it no big deal, i make people think and whilst many are unable to see past what has been drilled into them, or the invalid irrational conclusions they have formed SOME can, and that makes it worthwhile.

"*sighs* When you say he's talking nonsense, that's a judgement that you are making based on your knowledge and your point of view. Who's to say that he has different knowledge and a entirely different point of view? You are sure as hell not that one."

When i say he's talking nonsense i'm saying his LOGIC is flawed, as in the reasoning he's basing his conclusions on, he said that energy cannot be destroyed which is correct however he also said that LOVE is energy!? That's WRONG, no two ways about it, WRONG, as WRONG as saying the Earth is flat, as WRONG as saying that i am in America right now.

As for this "different knowledge" different "point of view" stuff.......... SCIENCE is the sum of humanties knowledge over the past 4000 years continually distilled to remove incorrect theory.

I can say he's talking nonsense because behind my knowledge is Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, Faraday, to name but a few not only that but only the things that successive generations of scientists have not found fault with.

I KNOW that i am made of cells, so if some prize fool comes along and anounces to the world that infact i'm made up of tiny blocks of cement, well he's WRONG, you have to get over this academic relativist nonsense, again the voice of social accceptability can be heard saying "oooh..... all knowledge is equal......... oooh....no belief system is more valid than any other ...oooh..... BLAH BLAH BLAH" its TOTAL nonsense, some beliefs are WRONG, just plain wrong, i know, your insides curl up at the idea, you hate it you fight against, "who are you to say they wrong", etc. etc. Who am I? Someone with an iota of intellect, that's who I am. Someone who will actually come out and say that a car is infact.... a car.

The problem ia social acceptability is such a force to be reckoned with, that people respond to its woos far more readily than to logic. Dawkins shows a good example of this in Unweaving the Rainbow:

"If you say"Look, here isoverwhelming evidence from carbon dating, from mitochondrial DNA,and from archeological analyses of potery, that X is the case" you will get nowhere. But if you say, "It is a fundamental andunquestioned belief of my culture that X is the case" you will immediately hold a judges attention"

You disregard what i say because you don't like it, not because you can fault my reasoning.

>Second level.......?<

Yes, the knowledge is in an unintelligible form. I call it unintelligible, but I can make sense of it. Have you ever had a dream that made so much sense when you were asleep, but after you woke up there was no way to describe it through communication to another person? This is sort of like that. I understand it, but it's impossible for me to "describe" and "explain" it to anyone.

Now, if I try redescribing it to myself (I call this on a second level) then I will still fail. This would be sort of like putting that unintelligble dream down on paper and then trying to make sense of what they wrote. Even the person who had the dream can't make sense exclusively of what they wrote down on paper.

>Why do you assume the your experiences MEAN anything?<

Why do you assume they mean nothing? Why do you assume science is a set of laws rather than a set of perceptions? That's all science is to me. Perceptions that occur over and over again. Just because they have never proved otherwise doesn't mean they will never.

Anyway, I think we've went over what is to come. You'll tell me that the probability of the sky falling tomorrow is incredibly minute. I'll agree, but I'll make the statement that it's still possible. This still gets both of us nowhere.

>Of course you didn't and yet that is what is speaking, not you, but the voice of social acceptability, you but its puppet.<

This has nothing to do with social acceptablility for me. It's fundamentally wrong to insult someone's opinion without _knowing_ (not assuming like you did) where it is they are coming from. It's not really about hurting the person emotionally (although that does have some play in it); if you insult someone because of their belief, that shows other people you don't agree with it, and you feel like you should make it known that you beleive that person is stupid or whatever. You do this because you don't know where they are coming from. So, ultimately, you are telling people you are making a decision on something you have no knowledge on.

Edit: Deletion: misquotation. My apologies.

"Oh God, don't be so full of yourself to know how why I do whatever it is I do. That's a big fault, buddy."

I've seen it so many times before.

"I disregard what you say because I don't agree with it and because I can't agree with it."

And yet you cannot provide any rational arguments for why.

"That's sad then."

There are bigger things to worry about.

"Jesus, you are so full of yourself. Why? Are you arrogant because you "know" so much about things?"

I know how to think, precious few do. I find holes in theories other people don't see, i have a gift for science i have yet to see rivalled, am i arrogant? Hell yea, doesn't alter the fact that i'm right.

"As for the debate, you insulted someone's belief without knowing where they are coming from"

And the voice of social acceptability returns.......

"I told you that you shouldn't insult people's beliefs simply because you believe they are incorrect."

I'll just quote my previous response:

"Stupid ideas DESERVE to be mocked, otherwise people take them seriously!"

"You give me all this bull**** about ethics, principles, and how you are right because you've got science on your side."

Its BS why?

"You define science, and make assumptions about me. Then at the end, neither of us has changed the other's opinions/beliefs just as I had guessed."

Eh? I define science? I don't believe for instant i will change your opinions you are too far gone, your own views are already etched into your brain too strongly to ever change, however other people read this stuff, and one hopes there are people out there who are sane and do see that i talk sense.

"I DO pity you, Clyde. I hope one day you'll realize that your reasoning is indeed pathetic"

AHAHA, yes yes my reasoning is "pathetic", curious then that it is the same reasoning behind all of science namely LOGIC, the same reasoning used to build aeropplanes, cars computers, the same reasoning that has allowed us to understand huge amounts about the universe around us...... truly "pathetic"........

You are getting angry because i can so easily shoot down what you say, the reason is simple, you don't provde reasoning behind your points.

Its very simple: i believe the world is round because there is truly a huge amount evidence supporting it, furthermore I know that in the face of such evidence belief that the Earth is round is the logical conclusion, hence when someone comes along and says the Earth is flat I point out they are incorrect, of course then someone like you comes along and says "you cant say hes wrong!!!, he might be right, he might just have a different "perspective", who are you to say he's wrong!?" or something similar, at which point i explain that his reasoning is clearly flawed that it is clearly illogical to believe the Earth is flat in face of the evidence...... and so the debate continues.

Of course that example is one where social acceptability is on my side so you wouldnt in fact start that particular argument HOWEVER as soon as the subject changes from the Earth being flat to something EQUALLY illogical BUT flies against social acceptability because it falls under the catagory of someone "beliefs" then you do. Come on, can't you see it! Throw off the shackles in your mind and LOOK free from bias.

"Have you ever had a dream that made so much sense when you were asleep, but after you woke up there was no way to describe it through communication to another person?"

Hmm thats probably because your memory fades too quickly, however its concieveable that funky stuff happens in dreams, the brain does do strange stuff when we asleep.

"Why do you assume they mean nothing?"

Why assume they mean nothing? Because i have atleast a basic education in how biology works, and in what governs the universe. You percieve stuff because of the physical structure of your brain, end of story, thats it. Experimentally demonstrated. In short I "assume" they mean nothing because i'm not totally ignorant of neurology.

"Why do you assume science is a set of laws rather than a set of perceptions?""

UGH, thats an awfull AWFULL sentence, it clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding, i don't mean to sound arrogant but what you just said is really REALLY wrong. You are effectively ignoring the findings of the greatest minds of the past 4000 years.

Why do I "assume" that "science" is a set of laws?

Ok ill attempt to answer it:

"Science" is not a set of laws "science" is merely a method of working out the properties of the universe in a logical manner. Ie. instead of randomly guessing the distance between the Earth and the moon we measure it, that's science.

The universe as revealed by science demonstrates laws, as in fixed relationships, the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed (basically), ie. energy is never created nor destroyed, passing it off as MERE "perception" is meaningless, because it implies that the property is NOT one of the universe but one of our heads, "YES YES" i hear you cry " thats right its all in our heads"............ no, its not. Because if it was, DERIVED mathematical theory wouldnt work.

For a start the idea that the properties of the universe are "perceptions" as you put it, is ludicrous: what causes them? how and why do we see them? why is it everything about them points to them being "objective" phenomena? And why exactly does everyone "percieve" the laws to be exactly the same?

Lets work with it though, lets say that when i notice that there appears to be a relationship between pressure and temperature, that relationship is not a "law" but in fact just a "perception" in my head, its not real...... ok, that would mean that if I deduce a theory explaining WHY there is a relationship between temperature and pressure, that theory is WRONG, hence if I then combine that WRONG theory with another theory equally WRONG (its also obviously just a "perception", then of course the resulting new theory is also wrong, and has no bearing on the real world or on any "perception" i might have....... and YET i can make predictions with this new theory and experiments hold to them! Surely if they were merely based on perception there would be no reason for this new theory to prove correct, unless of course it just so happened by a spectacular coincidence to conincide with another "perception" of the world........ well that spectacular coincidence has happened again, and again, and again, and again...

Oh dear, there goes your "perception", argument.

See thats just it, these questions WERE intelligent once upon time when we didnt know much about anything, but they have been answered, a million times over. Scientists are not arrogant when they laugh such things off, any more so than when they laugh off the suggestion that actually the stars a little white dots embedded in mystical either about 5 miles above the Earth.

"That's all science is to me"

This is because you don't really understand science, you dont see what it does or how it does it.

"Anyway, I think we've went over what is to come. You'll tell me that the probability of the sky falling tomorrow is incredibly minute. I'll agree, but I'll make the statement that it's still possible. This still gets both of us nowhere. "

Indeed, but you seem to think its ok to believe in something ridiculously improbable. When a guy comes onto the boards claiming the sky will fall tommorow I mock him, you defend him....... well when tommorow comes i will be right and you two will be wrong. Rationality will have won again.

"This has nothing to do with social acceptablility for me"

I'm not so sure, i think social acceptable arguments do play a big part in your views, though perhaps a specific derivative of social acceptability..... that of the educated middle-class, your opinions are popular among arts students who wax on about stuff that they clearly have no idea about (My g/f got set an essay discussing whether dreams were "internal" or "external", and of course the lecturers and the "good" students sit around in earnest discussing the matter, seemingly completely unaware that the question has already been answered in fact they OBJECT rather strongly to this being pointed out).

" It's fundamentally wrong to insult someone's opinion without _knowing_ (not assuming like you did) where it is they are coming from."

Fundamentally? Please. Without knowing "where he's coming from", what does this stuff MEAN? I don't need to know where he's coming from, to know his logic SUCKS, Like i said before when my girlfriend gets stoned and tells me the elves are going to get her, I "don't know where she's coming from", i can still point out that its nonsense and they aren't.

"It's not really about hurting the person emotionally (although that does have some play in it); if you insult someone because of their belief, that shows other people you don't agree with it, and you feel like you should make it known that you beleive that person is stupid or whatever. You do this because you don't know where they are coming from"

I don't care "where they're coming from", they are WRONG, if someone did post (sincerely) that that they believed the sky was going to fall tommorow because of what the pixies told them, i wouldn't have a ****ing clue "where they were coming from", i'd still point out the nonsense, i DON'T NEED to "know where they're coming from" to see what they are saying is NONSENSE.

"So, ultimately, you are telling people you are making a decision on something you have no knowledge on"

Eh? But i DO have knowledge, i KNOW that love is not "energy" because i know what energy is, and i know what love is. How do I know? Because i have the luxury of living after Newton, Darwin, Faraday et al, who've already worked that stuff out!