Hello friends, I would like to apologize to everyone. I now realize how wrong and ignorant I was.
I have found the missing piece, the unchallenged proof that god exists. For all the times when I bashed god, I now realize I might end up in hell because I'm such a bad person.
I belive in God. All of this, the universe and beyond, needs a start. In my religion, God created all of this. As well, you might wonder:
"And, how did God get created? God needs a start....."
In my religion, God existed at all times. God existed all the time, from the start of the universe, before, and after.
What start? Your belief is illogical. Why must there be a start? We simply don't know what created us, or if there is a god, or if there ever was a start. We can't even define what "nothing" is. You're simply substituting what you don't know with god. And hear me out, I'm not insulting here, but I would like to hear your thoughts further because your belief is illogical. Now before you go against me, understand that when I say "illogical" it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means of course that you have no concrete proofs of the existence of god, or your god I should say.
Now, it is undoubtedly faith am I correct? You have faith that god exists because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right? I'm assuming you grew up in a religious environment correct? Meaning either your parents passed it on to you, or you live in area where religion is prominent. Are you open to accept that you may be incorrect? That other's with other religions might be more correct, or that others with no religious beliefs might be correct? Sorry for the questions, but I need to situate where you're at so that I can either learn from you, disprove you or direct you.
That's an uncharitable approach, and poor reasoning.
- On the left hand: You allow that belief-without-proof is illogical.
- On the right hand: You force a false choice, as if there were only two options - "... because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Using the same reasoning, I would contend that your mother never loved you, if she even exists, but you're free to think so, but it is illogical. (Obviously this is a thought experiment: I am sure your mother is a kind, decent woman who loves you very much)
The woman you think is your mother is not your mother.
- Who gave birth to you?
- How do you know?
- Is it possible that you're wrong?
- How do you know the genetic test that I'm sure you're going to cite isn't faked? Or that the woman claiming to be your mother isn't your sister, or your aunt, assuming you perform the genetic test yourself in your *secret laboratory*
If she is your mother, she never loved you.
- Can you give proof of this love, or only evidence?
- Is it that she protected and nurtured you? Even some fish care for their young. Is that love?
- Did she sacrifice herself for you? A mother-cat will die to protect her kittens, but is that love?
- There is no such thing as love. We cannot measure it, and no machine can detect it. It doesn't exist, because it is *illogical*. Animals have instincts, humans have choice.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Shaking one person's faith does no more to disprove the existence of supernatural forces than Einstein's being wrong about quantum indeterminacy discredits the entire realm of physics.
You can't simply take the "belief in a god" and create an analogy with the love of a mother. And since your argument is founded on that premise, most of your intervention is off-topic and irrelevant.
But I think I understand the message of your intervention. If I understand you correctly, your "love cannot be measured and is thus nonexistent" premise, corresponds to the objective-objective effect vs objectivity and subjectivity.
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
However, if we hypothetically detach ourselves from everything we think we know, for instance, if we were able to view the entire universe from an omnipresent perspective, that same example (big bang being more objective than creationism) would be false because both are technically not measurable if we were to consider the "big picture".
So, to juxtapose this example with your intervention, from an objective-objective perspective you're saying love is non-existent due to too many uncertainties as is my original premise of "because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Am I understanding correctly? You're saying it is illogical to consider believing in nothing more logical than to believe in a god? If so you are right in that sense, but I already knew that. I was basing my knowledge on objective terms in correspondence to our physical world, not the objective-objective sense, or the "completely objective" sense, if you wanna call it that.
Which actually means my first premise: "belief-without-proof is illogical" is correct in your terms. So... either you're contradicting or you you were simply summarizing.
In the first paragraph of your superficially-well-ordered reply, you tell me of a rule-of-debate that I wasn't aware of ('thou cannot create this analogy'), falsely characterize my argument ('your argument is based only on this'), then dismiss the argument as 'off topic and irrelevant' based on the rule-of-debate-that-doesn't-exist and poor characterization of my response.
In the next paragraph, you then affirm a part of my analogy, and go on to demonstrate *exactly* how it my analogy is at least as topical and relevant as many others.
I don't accuse you of poor sportsmanship, I attribute your lack of rhetorical rigor to passion, unrestrained by reason. I will be mindful of the intellectual disadvantage this places you in, and attempt to apply rhetorical charity in my defense.
Regarding your assertion of objectivity and evidence, and the creation of the universe.
Quote:
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
1. *I do not agree* that there is more objective evidence that the Big Bang (BB) created the universe than a god/gods.
Applying charity, I think it is probably valid to say that *scientists* agree that BB was necessary to explain *the expansion of the universe* and the *conditions for the current state of the universe*, based on the evidence available to them. BB is a necessary, but not sufficient, explanation for the creation of the universe. Science is *not objective*. The scientific method *strives* for objectivity, but *science* is populated by humans.
2. I do not believe that god/gods are a *scientifically* satisfying answer to the creation of the universe, either. I am simply saying that science provides *no better of a scientific answer as to the creation of the universe*, than a superstitious origin.
As to the rest of your argument, it is built on false premises. It may be *true* (I don't believe it is) but it isn't *valid*. Being charitable (as I believe you *intended to be* with me, before your emotion took hold) I would say that my Mom argument is manifold.
- It would be a fair statement to say that I believe that it is about as logical to believe in a mother's love as it is to believe that supernatural forces created the universe.
- It is also a fair statement to say that I characterize human belief without proof as neither illogical or logical.
I believe in many scientific theories that are ultimately beyond my capability, or science's, to prove.
- It is also a fair statement that I say the truth value of a statement is independent of its logical validity.
Example 1: Just because Unleashed cannot structure an argument to *save his life* doesn't mean what he says is *untrue*.
Example 2: Unleashed states a belief in *evolution*, but has demonstrated ignorance of key aspects of it. This doesn't mean that natural selection as a mechanism to drive speciesization is *untrue*
Example 3: I accept that light cannot exceed C, and in a vacuum, C is constant. I cannot prove the first assertion experimentally, and the second assertion is only falsifiable experimentally (it is true until it is proven false). The arguments for C's boundary conditions lie not in experimental falsification, but in the application of C to other equations explaining the universe - some of which I do not know, and many of which I readily concede *I may never understand*
Is my belief illogical?
- Metaphysical speculation (Love, God, What 'started' the big bang) is not necessarily inconsistent with the scientific method. When the two overlap its asshats and opinions (Sam Miller fans are free to disagree, but then should read on to the details below). BB does not explain the creation of the universe, in that it is not a *sufficient* explanation. What 'caused' the BB? Children, Xeno, and I all would ask 'what came before' and leave the conversation unsatisfied.
God's existence is not a special case claim of fact. This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the questions of Love.
- The Nature of Evidence is ultimately based on faith, anyway. The nature of proof is not, but the ultimate expression of proof (deductive reasoning) has been repeatedly demonstrated to be founded on indemonstrable axioms (Godel et. al). This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the nature of evidence.
- I generally trust scientists. That's a personal choice. There are plenty of reasons not to. I cannot ever make a fully informed choice, because I cannot have all of science in my head at once. I *can* look for logical inconsistencies, but peer review should have removed these.
A perfect example: If I traveled back in time to debate with Newton, I could *know* that Newton was wrong about the universe, but I wouldn't have the ability to *demonstrate* it to him, because the experiments required to demonstrate the non-euclidean nature of spacetime required technology outside of Newton's time. I would be *right* but my argument would be *scientifically invalid*.
Ultimately, trust in scientists is a resort to argument from authority. I will never have the religious training of a rabbi or a mullah, and I will never have the scientific training of a cosmologist or chemist. Both domains of human knowledge ultimately rest on tautological, self-referential, recursive axioms.
Each is a cult.
This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the issue of Argument From Authority.
<<< More Detail >>>
On Scientists And Truth
I believe the scientists are *sincere* in their belief, and since scientists are the community who get to decide what is and is not a scientific theory, their consensus is that BB is the theory most consistent with the evidence they have.
I am also painfully aware that this same 'community' *also* gets to determine who is, and isn't, a scientist, and who is, and isn't credible. This is the same community that said Newton was right, then Einstein was right and Newton was 'simplistic', then Einstein was 'deterministic' and Heisenberg et. al. were right. I *do trust* the scientific method and scientific *honesty* but that's a personal choice, because I value reason, and so do they. Scientists do not work in the realm of Truth, only in the realm of Theory. No one person is compelled to feel the same way that I do about scientists, as a class, or science, as a discipline. There are plenty of examples of science and scientists that I *do not trust* (e.g. Eugenics).
Finally, though I can be relatively familiar with physics and cosmology, at some point in a discussion with a professional scientists, the math or physics will be beyond my current capability to comprehend. If I were to dedicate my life to studying cosmology to the 'Hawking' level, and be sufficiently knowledgeable about cosmology, then, I'd still have to trust 'economists' or 'chemists' in their assertions.
[To save you time typing, there is a difference between science and technology]
Ultimately, who is to say that the Cult of Science provides more meaning than the Cult of Superstition?
On BB and The Creation of the Universe
The BB is a *necessary but not sufficient* explanation of the creation of the universe. It was the 'second step'. What caused the BB to occur? Largely cosmologists will tell us 'we don't know' - questions of 'before' have no meaning because spacetime had no form before the BB. Some cosmophilosophers will provide *conjectures*, often contradictory, which always-always lead precocious children, Xeno, and rational people who aren't cosmophilosophers to ask 'what, before then, then'?
On the 'Usefulness' of Science
Science only provides questions and theories. Technology provides things. The Internal Combustion Engine was built applying Newtonian principles. Newton was wrong; but under local boundary conditions, was 'right enough' to permit it's creation. Einstein was generally wrong about the deterministic nature of the universe, but was right enough to lead to the construction of atomic weapons.
The IC Engine is in use today, and, according to *scientists* is a likely threat to human civilization. Atomic weapons were used twice, and will hopefully never be used again, and are also a threat.
Technology didn't require science: Fire, the wheel etc. were trial-and-error refined. The scientific method provided a force multiplier on technological development but also deprecated the value of metaphysics to the human condition. The scientific method was 'useful' in that it wildly expanded technological development, and in the human economy, resources were allocated to science and away from metaphysical. How useful is the scientific method to humanity if it ultimately leads to human destruction?
I'm not as motivated as you to discuss the scientific method and intricate metaphysical implications involved to its regard. So I will not discuss them with you because you seem to develop your arguments on subjects from your own agenda.
As for our original debate, we are on the same page in terms of logic, belief and science. For instance:
""""" 2. I do not believe that god/gods are a *scientifically* satisfying answer to the creation of the universe, either. I am simply saying that science provides *no better of a scientific answer as to the creation of the universe*, than a superstitious origin. """"
Yes I agree. Objective-objective speculation.
"""" As to the rest of your argument, it is built on false premises. It may be *true* (I don't believe it is) but it isn't *valid*. """"
Well of course.
""""Being charitable (as I believe you *intended to be* with me, before your emotion took hold)"""
No lol.
And yes your Mom argument is manifold. But honestly, it's not a good exemplification. But that's just me, perhaps your conjecture is correct, but you haven't convinced me.
Side note: You seem like you wanna prove yourself to everyone in the fora. Not sure if you're aware or not, of your obvious intellectual superiority to the vast majority of the community. You do seem sincere in your approach to inform other users, but you know very well they're not on the same page as you. As you've certainly noticed, every single one of your interventions have been diverted and tweaked by others due to their intellectual limits. Yet you continue to argue further to prove that "you're right!!" which you already know, to the detriment of others' abilities.
You are very informative and educated on a wide range of subjects, no need to argue with lesser-souls.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Let's correct that a little bit shall we? Stop telling other people what to apply or when.
You do not apply reason or logic to religious faith. There can be two reasons for that.
a) You're afraid of the possibility of eternal hell
b) You're an idiot.
I didn't write that.
Also, unleashed. You make several category mistakes in your approach. For instance, metaphysics vs. science.
George Carlin didn't know everything. You seem ostentatious due to your Carlin enlightened beliefs.
Also, unleashed. You make several category mistakes in your approach. For instance, metaphysics vs. science.
George Carlin didn't know everything. You seem ostentatious due to your Carlin enlightened beliefs.
Please forgive me. It was meant for zombie.
Nobody knows everything, I like Carlin because he talked about important and serious stuff while also making it funny. He did know some things, which really aren't hard to see if you think about it.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
I understand that you're defending your shitty little views which have been forced upon you since birth by your culture. Victims of indoctrination are a lot of the same. I already told you I have low tolerance for bullshit, therefore I stopped reading your posts a few days ago.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
I belive in God. All of this, the universe and beyond, needs a start. In my religion, God created all of this. As well, you might wonder:
"And, how did God get created? God needs a start....."
In my religion, God existed at all times. God existed all the time, from the start of the universe, before, and after.
What start? Your belief is illogical. Why must there be a start? We simply don't know what created us, or if there is a god, or if there ever was a start. We can't even define what "nothing" is. You're simply substituting what you don't know with god. And hear me out, I'm not insulting here, but I would like to hear your thoughts further because your belief is illogical. Now before you go against me, understand that when I say "illogical" it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means of course that you have no concrete proofs of the existence of god, or your god I should say.
Now, it is undoubtedly faith am I correct? You have faith that god exists because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right? I'm assuming you grew up in a religious environment correct? Meaning either your parents passed it on to you, or you live in area where religion is prominent. Are you open to accept that you may be incorrect? That other's with other religions might be more correct, or that others with no religious beliefs might be correct? Sorry for the questions, but I need to situate where you're at so that I can either learn from you, disprove you or direct you.
That's an uncharitable approach, and poor reasoning.
- On the left hand: You allow that belief-without-proof is illogical.
- On the right hand: You force a false choice, as if there were only two options - "... because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Using the same reasoning, I would contend that your mother never loved you, if she even exists, but you're free to think so, but it is illogical. (Obviously this is a thought experiment: I am sure your mother is a kind, decent woman who loves you very much)
The woman you think is your mother is not your mother.
- Who gave birth to you?
- How do you know?
- Is it possible that you're wrong?
- How do you know the genetic test that I'm sure you're going to cite isn't faked? Or that the woman claiming to be your mother isn't your sister, or your aunt, assuming you perform the genetic test yourself in your *secret laboratory*
If she is your mother, she never loved you.
- Can you give proof of this love, or only evidence?
- Is it that she protected and nurtured you? Even some fish care for their young. Is that love?
- Did she sacrifice herself for you? A mother-cat will die to protect her kittens, but is that love?
- There is no such thing as love. We cannot measure it, and no machine can detect it. It doesn't exist, because it is *illogical*. Animals have instincts, humans have choice.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Shaking one person's faith does no more to disprove the existence of supernatural forces than Einstein's being wrong about quantum indeterminacy discredits the entire realm of physics.
You can't simply take the "belief in a god" and create an analogy with the love of a mother. And since your argument is founded on that premise, most of your intervention is off-topic and irrelevant.
But I think I understand the message of your intervention. If I understand you correctly, your "love cannot be measured and is thus nonexistent" premise, corresponds to the objective-objective effect vs objectivity and subjectivity.
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
However, if we hypothetically detach ourselves from everything we think we know, for instance, if we were able to view the entire universe from an omnipresent perspective, that same example (big bang being more objective than creationism) would be false because both are technically not measurable if we were to consider the "big picture".
So, to juxtapose this example with your intervention, from an objective-objective perspective you're saying love is non-existent due to too many uncertainties as is my original premise of "because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Am I understanding correctly? You're saying it is illogical to consider believing in nothing more logical than to believe in a god? If so you are right in that sense, but I already knew that. I was basing my knowledge on objective terms in correspondence to our physical world, not the objective-objective sense, or the "completely objective" sense, if you wanna call it that.
Which actually means my first premise: "belief-without-proof is illogical" is correct in your terms. So... either you're contradicting or you you were simply summarizing.
In the first paragraph of your superficially-well-ordered reply, you tell me of a rule-of-debate that I wasn't aware of ('thou cannot create this analogy'), falsely characterize my argument ('your argument is based only on this'), then dismiss the argument as 'off topic and irrelevant' based on the rule-of-debate-that-doesn't-exist and poor characterization of my response.
In the next paragraph, you then affirm a part of my analogy, and go on to demonstrate *exactly* how it my analogy is at least as topical and relevant as many others.
I don't accuse you of poor sportsmanship, I attribute your lack of rhetorical rigor to passion, unrestrained by reason. I will be mindful of the intellectual disadvantage this places you in, and attempt to apply rhetorical charity in my defense.
Regarding your assertion of objectivity and evidence, and the creation of the universe.
Quote:
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
1. *I do not agree* that there is more objective evidence that the Big Bang (BB) created the universe than a god/gods.
Applying charity, I think it is probably valid to say that *scientists* agree that BB was necessary to explain *the expansion of the universe* and the *conditions for the current state of the universe*, based on the evidence available to them. BB is a necessary, but not sufficient, explanation for the creation of the universe. Science is *not objective*. The scientific method *strives* for objectivity, but *science* is populated by humans.
2. I do not believe that god/gods are a *scientifically* satisfying answer to the creation of the universe, either. I am simply saying that science provides *no better of a scientific answer as to the creation of the universe*, than a superstitious origin.
As to the rest of your argument, it is built on false premises. It may be *true* (I don't believe it is) but it isn't *valid*. Being charitable (as I believe you *intended to be* with me, before your emotion took hold) I would say that my Mom argument is manifold.
- It would be a fair statement to say that I believe that it is about as logical to believe in a mother's love as it is to believe that supernatural forces created the universe.
- It is also a fair statement to say that I characterize human belief without proof as neither illogical or logical.
I believe in many scientific theories that are ultimately beyond my capability, or science's, to prove.
- It is also a fair statement that I say the truth value of a statement is independent of its logical validity.
Example 1: Just because Unleashed cannot structure an argument to *save his life* doesn't mean what he says is *untrue*.
Example 2: Unleashed states a belief in *evolution*, but has demonstrated ignorance of key aspects of it. This doesn't mean that natural selection as a mechanism to drive speciesization is *untrue*
Example 3: I accept that light cannot exceed C, and in a vacuum, C is constant. I cannot prove the first assertion experimentally, and the second assertion is only falsifiable experimentally (it is true until it is proven false). The arguments for C's boundary conditions lie not in experimental falsification, but in the application of C to other equations explaining the universe - some of which I do not know, and many of which I readily concede *I may never understand*
Is my belief illogical?
- Metaphysical speculation (Love, God, What 'started' the big bang) is not necessarily inconsistent with the scientific method. When the two overlap its asshats and opinions (Sam Miller fans are free to disagree, but then should read on to the details below). BB does not explain the creation of the universe, in that it is not a *sufficient* explanation. What 'caused' the BB? Children, Xeno, and I all would ask 'what came before' and leave the conversation unsatisfied.
God's existence is not a special case claim of fact. This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the questions of Love.
- The Nature of Evidence is ultimately based on faith, anyway. The nature of proof is not, but the ultimate expression of proof (deductive reasoning) has been repeatedly demonstrated to be founded on indemonstrable axioms (Godel et. al). This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the nature of evidence.
- I generally trust scientists. That's a personal choice. There are plenty of reasons not to. I cannot ever make a fully informed choice, because I cannot have all of science in my head at once. I *can* look for logical inconsistencies, but peer review should have removed these.
A perfect example: If I traveled back in time to debate with Newton, I could *know* that Newton was wrong about the universe, but I wouldn't have the ability to *demonstrate* it to him, because the experiments required to demonstrate the non-euclidean nature of spacetime required technology outside of Newton's time. I would be *right* but my argument would be *scientifically invalid*.
Ultimately, trust in scientists is a resort to argument from authority. I will never have the religious training of a rabbi or a mullah, and I will never have the scientific training of a cosmologist or chemist. Both domains of human knowledge ultimately rest on tautological, self-referential, recursive axioms.
Each is a cult.
This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the issue of Argument From Authority.
<<< More Detail >>>
On Scientists And Truth
I believe the scientists are *sincere* in their belief, and since scientists are the community who get to decide what is and is not a scientific theory, their consensus is that BB is the theory most consistent with the evidence they have.
I am also painfully aware that this same 'community' *also* gets to determine who is, and isn't, a scientist, and who is, and isn't credible. This is the same community that said Newton was right, then Einstein was right and Newton was 'simplistic', then Einstein was 'deterministic' and Heisenberg et. al. were right. I *do trust* the scientific method and scientific *honesty* but that's a personal choice, because I value reason, and so do they. Scientists do not work in the realm of Truth, only in the realm of Theory. No one person is compelled to feel the same way that I do about scientists, as a class, or science, as a discipline. There are plenty of examples of science and scientists that I *do not trust* (e.g. Eugenics).
Finally, though I can be relatively familiar with physics and cosmology, at some point in a discussion with a professional scientists, the math or physics will be beyond my current capability to comprehend. If I were to dedicate my life to studying cosmology to the 'Hawking' level, and be sufficiently knowledgeable about cosmology, then, I'd still have to trust 'economists' or 'chemists' in their assertions.
[To save you time typing, there is a difference between science and technology]
Ultimately, who is to say that the Cult of Science provides more meaning than the Cult of Superstition?
On BB and The Creation of the Universe
The BB is a *necessary but not sufficient* explanation of the creation of the universe. It was the 'second step'. What caused the BB to occur? Largely cosmologists will tell us 'we don't know' - questions of 'before' have no meaning because spacetime had no form before the BB. Some cosmophilosophers will provide *conjectures*, often contradictory, which always-always lead precocious children, Xeno, and rational people who aren't cosmophilosophers to ask 'what, before then, then'?
On the 'Usefulness' of Science
Science only provides questions and theories. Technology provides things. The Internal Combustion Engine was built applying Newtonian principles. Newton was wrong; but under local boundary conditions, was 'right enough' to permit it's creation. Einstein was generally wrong about the deterministic nature of the universe, but was right enough to lead to the construction of atomic weapons.
The IC Engine is in use today, and, according to *scientists* is a likely threat to human civilization. Atomic weapons were used twice, and will hopefully never be used again, and are also a threat.
Technology didn't require science: Fire, the wheel etc. were trial-and-error refined. The scientific method provided a force multiplier on technological development but also deprecated the value of metaphysics to the human condition. The scientific method was 'useful' in that it wildly expanded technological development, and in the human economy, resources were allocated to science and away from metaphysical. How useful is the scientific method to humanity if it ultimately leads to human destruction?
I'm not as motivated as you to discuss the scientific method and intricate metaphysical implications involved to its regard. So I will not discuss them with you because you seem to develop your arguments on subjects from your own agenda.
As for our original debate, we are on the same page in terms of logic, belief and science. For instance:
""""" 2. I do not believe that god/gods are a *scientifically* satisfying answer to the creation of the universe, either. I am simply saying that science provides *no better of a scientific answer as to the creation of the universe*, than a superstitious origin. """"
Yes I agree. Objective-objective speculation.
"""" As to the rest of your argument, it is built on false premises. It may be *true* (I don't believe it is) but it isn't *valid*. """"
Well of course.
""""Being charitable (as I believe you *intended to be* with me, before your emotion took hold)"""
No lol.
And yes your Mom argument is manifold. But honestly, it's not a good exemplification. But that's just me, perhaps your conjecture is correct, but you haven't convinced me.
Side note: You seem like you wanna prove yourself to everyone in the fora. Not sure if you're aware or not, of your obvious intellectual superiority to the vast majority of the community. You do seem sincere in your approach to inform other users, but you know very well they're not on the same page as you. As you've certainly noticed, every single one of your interventions have been diverted and tweaked by others due to their intellectual limits. Yet you continue to argue further to prove that "you're right!!" which you already know, to the detriment of others' abilities.
You are very informative and educated on a wide range of subjects, no need to argue with lesser-souls.
Regarding side-note (not disregarding your other argument!):
I may be more informed then some at the *outset* of a debate, but an information-asymmetry should reach equilibrium almost immediately - I try to cite wikipedia often because it is multi-language, and if an article exists in English, and not (e.g.) Chinese, Our Dear AWers can expand it. I'll never try to win a *consequential* debate based on Argument from Authority.
I would not claim to be more *intelligent* than anyone, except maybe Unleashed, and that is a claim I could make about 70% of humanity (if you have the right number of chromosomes, no traumatic brain injury, and your brain is fully matured, you're probably smarter than Unleashed).
I am of the personal opinion that for far too long, open-minded people have abandoned public debate with the willfully ignorant and wrathfully intolerant. This is a strategic error of the utmost gravity. For those of us in liberal democracies, we *get exactly the government we deserve*.
The uninformed (not ignorant) who hear only hate and half-truths shouldn't be blamed for voting or acting or thinking irrationally - there is no debate if there is only one voice, and the vile will win the ground of public opinion if unchallenged.
I can't prove myself, because I am but a humble servant to reason, moderation, and knowledge - and I struggle with harmonizing the balance. The global nature of AW has changed my mind on some things, too (Putin).
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
I understand that you're defending your shitty little views which have been forced upon you since birth by your culture. Victims of indoctrination are a lot of the same. I already told you I have low tolerance for bullshit, therefore I stopped reading your posts a few days ago.
What is my culture, and what are my views?
You are absolutely wrong; you have an unlimited tolerance for bullshit (your own) and zero tolerance for views-other-than-your-own. This is the literal definition of intolerance.
I belive in God. All of this, the universe and beyond, needs a start. In my religion, God created all of this. As well, you might wonder:
"And, how did God get created? God needs a start....."
In my religion, God existed at all times. God existed all the time, from the start of the universe, before, and after.
What start? Your belief is illogical. Why must there be a start? We simply don't know what created us, or if there is a god, or if there ever was a start. We can't even define what "nothing" is. You're simply substituting what you don't know with god. And hear me out, I'm not insulting here, but I would like to hear your thoughts further because your belief is illogical. Now before you go against me, understand that when I say "illogical" it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means of course that you have no concrete proofs of the existence of god, or your god I should say.
Now, it is undoubtedly faith am I correct? You have faith that god exists because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right? I'm assuming you grew up in a religious environment correct? Meaning either your parents passed it on to you, or you live in area where religion is prominent. Are you open to accept that you may be incorrect? That other's with other religions might be more correct, or that others with no religious beliefs might be correct? Sorry for the questions, but I need to situate where you're at so that I can either learn from you, disprove you or direct you.
That's an uncharitable approach, and poor reasoning.
- On the left hand: You allow that belief-without-proof is illogical.
- On the right hand: You force a false choice, as if there were only two options - "... because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Using the same reasoning, I would contend that your mother never loved you, if she even exists, but you're free to think so, but it is illogical. (Obviously this is a thought experiment: I am sure your mother is a kind, decent woman who loves you very much)
The woman you think is your mother is not your mother.
- Who gave birth to you?
- How do you know?
- Is it possible that you're wrong?
- How do you know the genetic test that I'm sure you're going to cite isn't faked? Or that the woman claiming to be your mother isn't your sister, or your aunt, assuming you perform the genetic test yourself in your *secret laboratory*
If she is your mother, she never loved you.
- Can you give proof of this love, or only evidence?
- Is it that she protected and nurtured you? Even some fish care for their young. Is that love?
- Did she sacrifice herself for you? A mother-cat will die to protect her kittens, but is that love?
- There is no such thing as love. We cannot measure it, and no machine can detect it. It doesn't exist, because it is *illogical*. Animals have instincts, humans have choice.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Shaking one person's faith does no more to disprove the existence of supernatural forces than Einstein's being wrong about quantum indeterminacy discredits the entire realm of physics.
You can't simply take the "belief in a god" and create an analogy with the love of a mother. And since your argument is founded on that premise, most of your intervention is off-topic and irrelevant.
But I think I understand the message of your intervention. If I understand you correctly, your "love cannot be measured and is thus nonexistent" premise, corresponds to the objective-objective effect vs objectivity and subjectivity.
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
However, if we hypothetically detach ourselves from everything we think we know, for instance, if we were able to view the entire universe from an omnipresent perspective, that same example (big bang being more objective than creationism) would be false because both are technically not measurable if we were to consider the "big picture".
So, to juxtapose this example with your intervention, from an objective-objective perspective you're saying love is non-existent due to too many uncertainties as is my original premise of "because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Am I understanding correctly? You're saying it is illogical to consider believing in nothing more logical than to believe in a god? If so you are right in that sense, but I already knew that. I was basing my knowledge on objective terms in correspondence to our physical world, not the objective-objective sense, or the "completely objective" sense, if you wanna call it that.
Which actually means my first premise: "belief-without-proof is illogical" is correct in your terms. So... either you're contradicting or you you were simply summarizing.
In the first paragraph of your superficially-well-ordered reply, you tell me of a rule-of-debate that I wasn't aware of ('thou cannot create this analogy'), falsely characterize my argument ('your argument is based only on this'), then dismiss the argument as 'off topic and irrelevant' based on the rule-of-debate-that-doesn't-exist and poor characterization of my response.
In the next paragraph, you then affirm a part of my analogy, and go on to demonstrate *exactly* how it my analogy is at least as topical and relevant as many others.
I don't accuse you of poor sportsmanship, I attribute your lack of rhetorical rigor to passion, unrestrained by reason. I will be mindful of the intellectual disadvantage this places you in, and attempt to apply rhetorical charity in my defense.
Regarding your assertion of objectivity and evidence, and the creation of the universe.
Quote:
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
1. *I do not agree* that there is more objective evidence that the Big Bang (BB) created the universe than a god/gods.
Applying charity, I think it is probably valid to say that *scientists* agree that BB was necessary to explain *the expansion of the universe* and the *conditions for the current state of the universe*, based on the evidence available to them. BB is a necessary, but not sufficient, explanation for the creation of the universe. Science is *not objective*. The scientific method *strives* for objectivity, but *science* is populated by humans.
2. I do not believe that god/gods are a *scientifically* satisfying answer to the creation of the universe, either. I am simply saying that science provides *no better of a scientific answer as to the creation of the universe*, than a superstitious origin.
As to the rest of your argument, it is built on false premises. It may be *true* (I don't believe it is) but it isn't *valid*. Being charitable (as I believe you *intended to be* with me, before your emotion took hold) I would say that my Mom argument is manifold.
- It would be a fair statement to say that I believe that it is about as logical to believe in a mother's love as it is to believe that supernatural forces created the universe.
- It is also a fair statement to say that I characterize human belief without proof as neither illogical or logical.
I believe in many scientific theories that are ultimately beyond my capability, or science's, to prove.
- It is also a fair statement that I say the truth value of a statement is independent of its logical validity.
Example 1: Just because Unleashed cannot structure an argument to *save his life* doesn't mean what he says is *untrue*.
Example 2: Unleashed states a belief in *evolution*, but has demonstrated ignorance of key aspects of it. This doesn't mean that natural selection as a mechanism to drive speciesization is *untrue*
Example 3: I accept that light cannot exceed C, and in a vacuum, C is constant. I cannot prove the first assertion experimentally, and the second assertion is only falsifiable experimentally (it is true until it is proven false). The arguments for C's boundary conditions lie not in experimental falsification, but in the application of C to other equations explaining the universe - some of which I do not know, and many of which I readily concede *I may never understand*
Is my belief illogical?
- Metaphysical speculation (Love, God, What 'started' the big bang) is not necessarily inconsistent with the scientific method. When the two overlap its asshats and opinions (Sam Miller fans are free to disagree, but then should read on to the details below). BB does not explain the creation of the universe, in that it is not a *sufficient* explanation. What 'caused' the BB? Children, Xeno, and I all would ask 'what came before' and leave the conversation unsatisfied.
God's existence is not a special case claim of fact. This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the questions of Love.
- The Nature of Evidence is ultimately based on faith, anyway. The nature of proof is not, but the ultimate expression of proof (deductive reasoning) has been repeatedly demonstrated to be founded on indemonstrable axioms (Godel et. al). This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the nature of evidence.
- I generally trust scientists. That's a personal choice. There are plenty of reasons not to. I cannot ever make a fully informed choice, because I cannot have all of science in my head at once. I *can* look for logical inconsistencies, but peer review should have removed these.
A perfect example: If I traveled back in time to debate with Newton, I could *know* that Newton was wrong about the universe, but I wouldn't have the ability to *demonstrate* it to him, because the experiments required to demonstrate the non-euclidean nature of spacetime required technology outside of Newton's time. I would be *right* but my argument would be *scientifically invalid*.
Ultimately, trust in scientists is a resort to argument from authority. I will never have the religious training of a rabbi or a mullah, and I will never have the scientific training of a cosmologist or chemist. Both domains of human knowledge ultimately rest on tautological, self-referential, recursive axioms.
Each is a cult.
This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the issue of Argument From Authority.
<<< More Detail >>>
On Scientists And Truth
I believe the scientists are *sincere* in their belief, and since scientists are the community who get to decide what is and is not a scientific theory, their consensus is that BB is the theory most consistent with the evidence they have.
I am also painfully aware that this same 'community' *also* gets to determine who is, and isn't, a scientist, and who is, and isn't credible. This is the same community that said Newton was right, then Einstein was right and Newton was 'simplistic', then Einstein was 'deterministic' and Heisenberg et. al. were right. I *do trust* the scientific method and scientific *honesty* but that's a personal choice, because I value reason, and so do they. Scientists do not work in the realm of Truth, only in the realm of Theory. No one person is compelled to feel the same way that I do about scientists, as a class, or science, as a discipline. There are plenty of examples of science and scientists that I *do not trust* (e.g. Eugenics).
Finally, though I can be relatively familiar with physics and cosmology, at some point in a discussion with a professional scientists, the math or physics will be beyond my current capability to comprehend. If I were to dedicate my life to studying cosmology to the 'Hawking' level, and be sufficiently knowledgeable about cosmology, then, I'd still have to trust 'economists' or 'chemists' in their assertions.
[To save you time typing, there is a difference between science and technology]
Ultimately, who is to say that the Cult of Science provides more meaning than the Cult of Superstition?
On BB and The Creation of the Universe
The BB is a *necessary but not sufficient* explanation of the creation of the universe. It was the 'second step'. What caused the BB to occur? Largely cosmologists will tell us 'we don't know' - questions of 'before' have no meaning because spacetime had no form before the BB. Some cosmophilosophers will provide *conjectures*, often contradictory, which always-always lead precocious children, Xeno, and rational people who aren't cosmophilosophers to ask 'what, before then, then'?
On the 'Usefulness' of Science
Science only provides questions and theories. Technology provides things. The Internal Combustion Engine was built applying Newtonian principles. Newton was wrong; but under local boundary conditions, was 'right enough' to permit it's creation. Einstein was generally wrong about the deterministic nature of the universe, but was right enough to lead to the construction of atomic weapons.
The IC Engine is in use today, and, according to *scientists* is a likely threat to human civilization. Atomic weapons were used twice, and will hopefully never be used again, and are also a threat.
Technology didn't require science: Fire, the wheel etc. were trial-and-error refined. The scientific method provided a force multiplier on technological development but also deprecated the value of metaphysics to the human condition. The scientific method was 'useful' in that it wildly expanded technological development, and in the human economy, resources were allocated to science and away from metaphysical. How useful is the scientific method to humanity if it ultimately leads to human destruction?
I'm not as motivated as you to discuss the scientific method and intricate metaphysical implications involved to its regard. So I will not discuss them with you because you seem to develop your arguments on subjects from your own agenda.
As for our original debate, we are on the same page in terms of logic, belief and science. For instance:
""""" 2. I do not believe that god/gods are a *scientifically* satisfying answer to the creation of the universe, either. I am simply saying that science provides *no better of a scientific answer as to the creation of the universe*, than a superstitious origin. """"
Yes I agree. Objective-objective speculation.
"""" As to the rest of your argument, it is built on false premises. It may be *true* (I don't believe it is) but it isn't *valid*. """"
Well of course.
""""Being charitable (as I believe you *intended to be* with me, before your emotion took hold)"""
No lol.
And yes your Mom argument is manifold. But honestly, it's not a good exemplification. But that's just me, perhaps your conjecture is correct, but you haven't convinced me.
Side note: You seem like you wanna prove yourself to everyone in the fora. Not sure if you're aware or not, of your obvious intellectual superiority to the vast majority of the community. You do seem sincere in your approach to inform other users, but you know very well they're not on the same page as you. As you've certainly noticed, every single one of your interventions have been diverted and tweaked by others due to their intellectual limits. Yet you continue to argue further to prove that "you're right!!" which you already know, to the detriment of others' abilities.
You are very informative and educated on a wide range of subjects, no need to argue with lesser-souls.
I think the Mom argument was very creative!
- It isn't intended to demonstrate any positive affirmation (god exists), its intent was to raise the possibility that god-questions aren't the only important metaphysical questions divorced from science (I didn't bring up Sam Harris), that metaphysical questions (love AND god AND creation of the universe) are different *in their essence* from scientific questions, and that they are both distinct domains of knowledge with only a small overlap.
- Also, that all evidence, even scientific evidence, and all knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is a matter of belief-without-proof, also known as faith.
It was done in a manner that most people can understand (even Unleashed has a mom) and provides no answers, only ground for further questions. Is it a syllogism that will survive rigorous academic scrutiny? Unlikely, but it wasn't *intended to*. I thought it up as I was preparing a response, and it is based off of a throwaway line in the movie Contact, based off a book by the most famous cosmologist ever, Carl Sagan.
Yes, Jodie Foster mangles the definition of Occam's razor.
Note: Earlier I referred to 'Miller' when I meant Sam Harris. Apologies.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
I understand that you're defending your shitty little views which have been forced upon you since birth by your culture. Victims of indoctrination are a lot of the same. I already told you I have low tolerance for bullshit, therefore I stopped reading your posts a few days ago.
What is my culture, and what are my views?
You are absolutely wrong; you have an unlimited tolerance for bullshit (your own) and zero tolerance for views-other-than-your-own. This is the literal definition of intolerance.
Lol unleashed you are uniquely indoctrinated yourself. The definition you give for ignorance and intolerance is the epitome of what you are displaying yourself. lol. You stopped reading his posts because you didn't understand. I would suggest you learn from it rather than automatically claiming it is bullshit. Either you didn't read his posts for that reason, or you've actually been reading them secretly to gain knowledge, yet denying their worth in public.
Lol unleashed you are uniquely indoctrinated yourself. The definition you give for ignorance and intolerance is the epitome of what you are displaying yourself. lol. You stopped reading his posts because you didn't understand. I would suggest you learn from it rather than automatically claiming it is bullshit. Either you didn't read his posts for that reason, or you've actually been reading them secretly to gain knowledge, yet denying their worth in public.
I have read enough to come to the conclusion that he's going off-topic about a bunch of crap and nonsense while trying to defend religion. "One doesn't apply rationality and logic to religion". If you think that's intelligent and 10 pages of similar nonsense is worth reading, you are insane. There is nothing to gain from speaking to this lunatic, and apparently he doesn't understand I can't see his posts and keeps writing books here. Enough time wasted.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
Lol unleashed you are uniquely indoctrinated yourself. The definition you give for ignorance and intolerance is the epitome of what you are displaying yourself. lol. You stopped reading his posts because you didn't understand. I would suggest you learn from it rather than automatically claiming it is bullshit. Either you didn't read his posts for that reason, or you've actually been reading them secretly to gain knowledge, yet denying their worth in public.
I have read enough to come to the conclusion that he's going off-topic about a bunch of crap and nonsense while trying to defend religion. "One doesn't apply rationality and logic to religion". If you think that's intelligent and 10 pages of similar nonsense is worth reading, you are insane. There is nothing to gain from speaking to this lunatic, and apparently he doesn't understand I can't see his posts and keeps writing books here. Enough time wasted.
I am *very unlikely* to 'defend' any particular 'religion' (collection of religious beliefs) on a logical basis. By their very nature most make claims that are logically indefensible. This does not speak to their truth value.
If any particular religion happens to *be true* then my defense is both not necessary, and woefully inadequate.
I am *very likely* to attack ignorance and intolerance, and *somewhat likely* to speak up if someone makes a claim about a particular religion that is manifestly untrue, usually in the form of 'all x believe' or 'all y must'.
If I see Unleashed expressing a more nuanced view (say, that held by a typical 12 year old skeptic, instead of the view of a dogmatic religion-hater) I will believe that he is reading-for-understanding.
I have yet to see any such evidence of this.
A child believes in Santa Claus
The child discovers a cache of toys ten days before Christmas, in his parent's bedroom closet.
On Christmas, the child receives the same presents he saw in his parent's bedroom closet, for Christmas, tagged: From Santa Claus.
What can Unleashed conclude from the previous?
- God doesn't exist. Society lied to him about Santa Claus, and therefore lied to him about God.
What can the child conclude from the previous?
- Nothing: Santa Claus is a busy man who put the presents there, either with or without his parents knowledge and consent.
What would an open-minded-average-person conclude from the previous?
- Santa Claus doesn't exist, everyone knows this is a story for children; the presents and/or the closet have nothing to do with Santa Claus' existence.
What would a scientist conclude?
- It is highly improbable that Santa Claus exists - no one person or network of people could amass the presents and deliver them within the time window available. The monetary value of the presents is correlated much more closely with a function of the parent's valuation of the Christmas myth multiplied by their economic circumstances, than with how good or bad the child has been through the previous year, assuming a median behavior of 'neither good nor bad'. An exceptionally virtuous child of a poor family is much less likely to receive expensive presents than an exceptionally misbehaving child of a wealthy family. In any case the presents and/or the closet are of zero impact to the truth value of Santa Claus' existence.
Lol unleashed you are uniquely indoctrinated yourself. The definition you give for ignorance and intolerance is the epitome of what you are displaying yourself. lol. You stopped reading his posts because you didn't understand. I would suggest you learn from it rather than automatically claiming it is bullshit. Either you didn't read his posts for that reason, or you've actually been reading them secretly to gain knowledge, yet denying their worth in public.
I have read enough to come to the conclusion that he's going off-topic about a bunch of crap and nonsense while trying to defend religion. "One doesn't apply rationality and logic to religion". If you think that's intelligent and 10 pages of similar nonsense is worth reading, you are insane. There is nothing to gain from speaking to this lunatic, and apparently he doesn't understand I can't see his posts and keeps writing books here. Enough time wasted.
In regards to topic relevance, I was one of the few that posted a direct response to the flawed analogy of Gott und Spidermann.
Perhaps you misunderstand the Abrahamic myth of Noah, and the nature of life.
More likely, you haven't read the story itself.
1. Arguably, freshwater, or saltwater aquatic animal life would have survived, depending on the volume of the flood and if the rainwater was the cause or the effect of the flood.
2. Noah is not reported to have made any provisions for plant life, and most non-aquatic forms of plant life would be destroyed by the flood.
3. The signal that the end of the flood was at hand was the delivery, by a dove, of an olive branch.
These three notes lend some clues to the meaning of the myth:
1. It isn't meant to be taken literally. How could the dove, olive branch and non-aquatic plant life survive?
2. It is meant to be taken literally, but was not a global event, merely as far-ranging as Noah could experience, and did wipe out all *human* life.
See (1).
3. It is meant to be taken with absolute literal truth, but the magnitude of the primary miracle outweighs the smaller inconsistencies of surviving aquatic life, most plants, and a bird and an olive tree.
In any of these cases, again you aren't even briefly familiar with the work of literature you're mocking, because the God in the story didn't wipe out all life besides that on the Ark.
Note: The law (better English translation is Thou Shall not Murder) is one of 613 Moses reportedly got from God.
L O N G after the flood. So you might also want to work on your chronology.
Well sorry to break it to you guys,but Tophats and Zombieyeti,you are both guilty of the same thing you are accusing Unleashed,its just your methods that are different.You also diferentiate yourselfs from the others here,by using super complex academic english,ridiculously overanalyzing everything and writing huge walls of text (sometimes going offtopic).Maybe both sides can meet in the middle,dunno..
using super complex academic english,ridiculously overanalyzing everything
Which wouldn't be a problem at all, in fact I think it's nice when people write or speak like that. The problem lies somewhere else.
If someone uses that type of language and is trying to appear smart and learned, but what he's actually saying is stupid nonsense, then we have a problem.
Well sorry to break it to you guys,but Tophats and Zombieyeti,you are both guilty of the same thing you are accusing Unleashed,its just your methods that are different.You also diferentiate yourselfs from the others here,by using super complex academic english,ridiculously overanalyzing everything and writing huge walls of text (sometimes going offtopic).Maybe both sides can meet in the middle,dunno..
What exactly is it I am accusing Unleashed of, that I am also 'guilty' of?
And since you think that, perhaps 'both sides should meet in the middle', what do you think my view, is, actually?
The thing which since an early age broke you, terrified you, indoctrinated you and stripped you off of your individuality and ability to think for yourself. The thing that enabled you to be stupid enough to say things like this, you goddamned idiot:
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith
So you mean we should blindly accept this crap and follow it, without even questioning it? And you call yourself intelligent? Well here's my reply to that
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
Bloodthirsty lunatic. Typical overly religious individual.
Yes, you are a moron.
LOL. Come on man xD. Stop that. When you do that I feel like a 5 year old kid is trying to pinch me .
You know sometimes a parent would tell to a kid, don't do that. Then the kid would make noises and frown and all that
I feel like you are a soviet soldier using a PSSH 41 to shoot at me, while I am inside a Tiger Tank.
You are like an ant trying to kill Goliath.
You are like the wolf howling at night, trying to disturb Buddha. It's not gonna happen.
By your logic, I am bloodthirsty for supporting the death of evil people. I suppose we can't execute murderers, people who would love to be Hitler or Stalin, and other very evil people.
Bloodthirsty lunatic. Typical overly religious individual.
Yes, you are a moron.
LOL. Come on man xD. Stop that. When you do that I feel like a 5 year old kid is trying to pinch me .
You know sometimes a parent would tell to a kid, don't do that. Then the kid would make noises and frown and all that
I feel like you are a soviet soldier using a PSSH 41 to shoot at me, while I am inside a Tiger Tank.
You are like an ant trying to kill Goliath.
You are like the wolf howling at night, trying to disturb Buddha. It's not gonna happen.
By your logic, I am bloodthirsty for supporting the death of evil people. I suppose we can't execute murderers, people who would love to be Hitler or Stalin, and other very evil people.
Dat logik
yes, if you encourage the genocide of "X" type of people, you are bloodthirsty or a lunatic.
The thing which since an early age broke you, terrified you, indoctrinated you and stripped you off of your individuality and ability to think for yourself. The thing that enabled you to be stupid enough to say things like this, you goddamned idiot:
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith
So you mean we should blindly accept this crap and follow it, without even questioning it? And you call yourself intelligent? Well here's my reply to that
Well, you didn't answer the question, not that I expected you to.
The question again: What is my culture, and what are my views?
I never said, or indicated that one should *ever blindly follow anything*. This includes science and religion.
For you to claim that I even suggested such a thing is a lie, and a waste of time.
You are not a skeptic, you are a religion hater. You don't even understand the most elementary aspects of your favorite targets. The Christian myths about creation, the flood, and the exodus are literally basic cultural knowledge for westerners. If you are a westerner, and are truly as ignorant of these myths as you demonstrate, you are culturally illiterate. Earlier I've demonstrated your scientific ignorance and your inability to grasp the-rules-which-grown-people-follow-when-they-debate (burden of proof).
For you the choice isn't between a red pill or a blue pill, you've already taken the blue pill. Game over. Try again? Press start to begin.
Bloodthirsty lunatic. Typical overly religious individual.
Yes, you are a moron.
LOL. Come on man xD. Stop that. When you do that I feel like a 5 year old kid is trying to pinch me .
You know sometimes a parent would tell to a kid, don't do that. Then the kid would make noises and frown and all that
I feel like you are a soviet soldier using a PSSH 41 to shoot at me, while I am inside a Tiger Tank.
You are like an ant trying to kill Goliath.
You are like the wolf howling at night, trying to disturb Buddha. It's not gonna happen.
By your logic, I am bloodthirsty for supporting the death of evil people. I suppose we can't execute murderers, people who would love to be Hitler or Stalin, and other very evil people.
Dat logik
yes, if you encourage the genocide of "X" type of people, you are bloodthirsty or a lunatic.
Then according to you, assuming most of the world follow the law, most of the world is evil since they want to jail or execute law breakers.
The thing which since an early age broke you, terrified you, indoctrinated you and stripped you off of your individuality and ability to think for yourself. The thing that enabled you to be stupid enough to say things like this, you goddamned idiot:
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith
So you mean we should blindly accept this crap and follow it, without even questioning it? And you call yourself intelligent? Well here's my reply to that
You are a source of much amusement. You, calling me, an idiot.
I have never called myself intelligent. I have said that I am much smarter than you, and that probably about 70% of humanity is smarter than you.
You're a liar. And you are deluded.
Yes, this means that your brain works in the zone of 'not retarded, but not even close to average'.
Since you love to call me an idiot - answer this question: Do you think for one second that you are 'smarter' than I am, in any meaningful way?
For you the choice isn't between a red pill or a blue pill, you've already taken the blue pill. Game over. Try again?
A religious suckup calls me a blue piller? Is this what it has come to? LOL.
Kid, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Your academic language can't mask your ridiculous ignorance and stupidity. You wanna-be intellectual.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
if you encourage the genocide of "X" type of people, you are bloodthirsty or a lunatic.
Then according to you, assuming most of the world follow the law, most of the world is evil since they want to jail or execute law breakers.
There is a big difference between "evil" and "bloodthirsty" educate yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloodthirsty
Seeking the genocide or death of any type of peple is being bloodthirsty.
Your religion is about love and peace, your god forgive humans after they crusified his son, yet YOU want to kill somebody that broke the law? Are you saying that anybody that breaks the law must die? If so you are breaking the law of god! And you aren't better than the people that you seek to banish!
For you the choice isn't between a red pill or a blue pill, you've already taken the blue pill. Game over. Try again?
A religious suckup calls me a blue piller? Is this what it has come to? LOL.
The Story of the Blue and Red Pill
Like most lesson-stories, it has meanings at many levels. In The Matrix it was set up as a one-time choice between living in a comfortable virtual world that was ultimately a lie or facing the uncomfortable but real world.
The lesson-story contains two elements: Making a choice between a dogmatic worldview (where a person keeps belief against all evidence and reason), and a skeptical worldview (where a person questions everything).
Red Pill: Eyes wide open skeptic. Follow reason and evidence, be open-minded.
Blue Pill: Willful ignorance. Your (final) deliberate choice is to ignore evidence and arguments that your world-view is incorrect. You will deny evidence and argument against your world view. You will be intolerant of these arguments.
Innocence: The individual has never faced evidence or arguments against their beliefs so forceful that they had to make a choice between willful ignorance and informed skepticism.
In The Matrix most people live in innocence. They have never been confronted with evidence which would challenge their beliefs enough that they had to make a choice. All humans free born in Zion like Dozer and Tank never took the red pill either.
The real world is much more complicated. You must take the red pill every time your beliefs are significantly challenged, otherwise you will begin to ignore evidence and reason against your world view. You must tolerate opposing viewpoints - not because you believe them, and not even because of the rights of other people to hold opposing viewpoints (though they have them). You must tolerate opposing viewpoints so your own beliefs are continually challenged.
So you even missed the point of the Story of the Blue and Red Pill.
If you had taken the Red Pill you would be presenting rational arguments, based on evidence. You would be tolerant of the views of others so your own beliefs would be challenged - and destroyed if incorrect.
I have given you more than enough information that if you had read and understood it, you would have been able to present better and more informed arguments based on reason and evidence. You willfully choose to ignore the evidence and arguments. You are willfully ignorant. You are massively intolerant of the views of others.
This is why you are a Blue Piller. Not because you are wrong, but because you hold beliefs that you refuse to challenge. Because you are perpetually intolerant and ignorant. Because this is not a movie, you can start taking the red pill. All evidence is that the patient refuses treatment.
For you the choice isn't between a red pill or a blue pill, you've already taken the blue pill. Game over. Try again?
A religious suckup calls me a blue piller? Is this what it has come to? LOL.
Kid, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Your academic language can't mask your ridiculous ignorance and stupidity. You wanna-be intellectual.
You continually call me names to substitute for your lack of argument or evidence. Since it has been about a week, I'll refresh the argument you have left unanswered.
If I stop elderly people from being beaten on the street, does this mean I must be an elderly person?
If I speak up against religious intolerance AND against lies about particular religions, am I then a member of that religion?
If you answer 'yes' to both, I can tell you that I am not an elderly simultaneously Christian-Jewish-Muslim-Hindu-Buddhist. You don't need belief to know this is the case. I may lie about being elderly, but I cannot be simultaneously Christian-Jewish-Muslim-Hindu-Buddhist, and it is highly unlikely that I am serially Christian>Jewish>Muslim>Hindu>Buddhist.
I am or am not elderly in our hypothetical discussion. You don't know the 'truth state'.
If I argue against elderly abuse in an internet forum:
- Does my argument and evidence carry more weight because I am elderly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- Does my argument and evidence carry less weight because I am not elderly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
- Does my argument and evidence carry more or less weight because I have a bias one way or the other? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
Or should my argument and evidence be based on their merit alone?
On 'wanna-be' intellectual
I was 'warned' by others (privately and publicly) not to waste my time with you, and people like you; Intellectuals don't waste time with people like you because they won't dirty their brains with trying to teach mental children the rules that grown-ups argue by, merely to see their grown-up rules ignored. These intellectuals have made grave strategic errors:
1) Of course mental children will ignore the rules - they are stupid and don't care about being thought of as stupid.
They are of the herd. Most intellectuals believe that most people are 'of the herd'. This doesn't mean that voters ignore them. Enough of them bleat and the flock follows.
2) Most people have no exposure to grown-up rules of debate, including some adults. This does not make them stupid. This makes them uninformed. They are in, but not of, the flock. If everyone's bleating, and everyone's moving in a single direction, why wouldn't they? They'd be stupid not to.
If there are many groups bleating, and moving in many directions, it is the choices made by these sheep that determine the direction of the flock.
3) Frequently people (let's call them politicians) know the rules and willfully ignore the rules to win arguments. They are intellectually bankrupt, but they *win elections* by catering to the uninformed and stupid in their electorate. They are not intellectuals because they no longer adhere to the Cult of Rationality.
They may have once been intellectuals, and may resume the pursuit, once their post-elected-public-life is done.
They fight to lead the flock. Sometimes they lead the flock in a good direction, sometimes bad. Usually in circles, hopefully generally in the right direction.
4) I cannot prove that there is a shepherd or sheepdogs. All I see are sheep and rams.
I'm a member of a liberal democracy; collectively, liberal democracies get dumber every day, because meaningful debate has largely been replaced by bleating sheep and occasionally rams butting heads. I don't know if meaningful debate has stopped because intellectuals have largely withdrawn from the political conflict or if that is merely a symptom.
*** Since we get the government we deserve in a liberal democracy I have a rational self interest to promote meaningful debate ***
I'm just an average skeptic, not particularly smart, and who *possesses a dogmatic belief, against all evidence' that most people are uninformed, not stupid.
I'm not an intellectual. I don't aspire to be one - I'm not smart enough. All I am is another sheep asking 'WTF, why is everyone going that way'?
1) Of course mental children will ignore the rules - they are stupid and don't care about being thought of as stupid.
They are of the herd. Most intellectuals believe that most people are 'of the herd'. This doesn't mean that voters ignore them. Enough of them bleat and the flock follows.
.
