"I've never seen any statement of Einstein's about Buddhism, but I can't believe you would suggest that just because he had things to say about it means it influenced his opinion on physics!"
I've never seen any statement of Einstein's about Buddhism, but I can't believe you would suggest that just because he had things to say about it doesn't mean it influenced his opinion on physics!
But Einstein was not the supergreat scientist he is made out to be. Einstein himself did make the mistake of relying on his intuition-- he rejected quantum mechanics based on his gut feelings, and it looks more and more like he was wrong. A true scientist does not reject something with supporting evidence based on "gut feeling".
It's more like having an intuitive sense of the world around you without needing to rely on rational thought all of the time. Anyone who is great at fact-gathering and reason alone would make a passable scientist at best. The greats are able to combine these abilities with intuition and insight to arrive at the big theorems that nobody else could foresee. You shouldn't take gut-feelings so lightly, friend.
Certainly spoken like someone who never took a physics class. If there is no way to verify this so-called "intuition", what good is it?
We have a surprising amount of agreement on morals between many different cultures. It's probably more than just "subjective interpretation and fellings", but that's another discussion.
Which would be accounted by the "many morals are instinctual" school of thought. Besides what we "feel" is moral, what makes it true, objective right-and-wrong? Nothing. It's all complete opinion.
You seem to think that any thoughts that cannot be verified in a lab are worthless. Not the most productive world-view.
Things do not need to be verified in a lab to be confirmed-- but personal, subjective intepretation like "Wow, those look like spirits, they must be DEAD HUMAN SOULS!" is what is counter-productive. That's why we operate on the principle of least assumptions as possible-- Occam's razor.
That is exactly the problem of his claptrap. I found that the believers eventually get down to "faith", and then accuse the scientific types of being religious even though they don't have the slightest idea what the difference between faith and empiricism is.
Sadly, they believe in "absolute proof", that things can be "mathematically proven" (which in itself is a myth!), which is their out on whenever there is no evidence that shows previous evidence was likely to be wrong or misinterpreted. They think things must be disproven in order to be invalid, and that's simply not the case. They don't understand how an elaborate system of assumptions could make -ANY- thing true, no matter what is observed!
Science gives us testibility, verification, etc. Science is designed to fix itself-- although some "scientists" may lack integrity, that certainly not true of most scientists.
Religion, on the other hand, just claims knowledge. It's ridiculous that people still adopt that fallatic and archaeic way of thinking in these modern times, but eh... people are stupid, I guess.
Yes, there are things people will never know. And there is no need for religion to speculate on it, because it's not fact or knowledge: it's speculation, that's all it is, and much of time it's most likely not true.
I never said science was pop philosophy. I love science. I'm saying your analysis of religion and beliefs are pop philosophy.
Yeah, anything that disagrees with the GREAT FORCE OF KNOWLEDGE that is Taoism is "pop philosophy".
Pop philosophy? Ha! Pop philosophy, if anything, is the eastern claptrap you have fallen for hook, like, and sinker. People are fascinated with that trash nowadays-- just look at the Matrix, THAT is pop philosophy.
[quote] I agree, all empirical claims are within the reach of science. But scientific thought (as is probably all thought) is based on a metaphysical framework. As can seen by the advances science has given us, the framework upon which science is supported is fantastic FOR WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO.[/quote]
Which is to make observations of and describe the universe, which leaves no room for religion except to control people.
[quote]
I'd argue, however, that science isn't the right tool for all problems. Like a sense of well-being, compassion, or morals.
Those are philosophical topics. Many philosophers, scientists, and including myself, agree that they are subjective things-- you cannot subjective morality as a true outside force.
Well-being, though, is very scientific as scientifics can or will be more able to one day describe the workings of the brain. Compassion, of course, is another instinctual part of us, as is morals-- the brain chemistry of morals is discussed in this months Discover.
I never told you what I believed in. I don't believe in silly deities or magical forces. You just wanted to be an asshole and assume it about me because I dared to give you an opinion other than your own. I am a pantheist (some would say that I'm really an atheist).
I know exactly what a pantheist is, it's semantic nonsense. "All is God". Sure, only if you define "All" to mean "God". Of course, the traditional definition of "god" includes "concious being" of some sort-- and there is no evidence to support that assertion of all. If that isn't what you mean by god, then it's painfully obvious you want to call yourself a "god believer" while not really believing in a true deity.
I don't believe in the supernatural. I also believe that no materialistic view of the world can explain all physical phenomenon without contradiction.
If it's not materialistic, it's supernatural, Mr. Pop Philosophy Eastern Claptrap. You have yet to explain how materialism is contradictory when science itself is materialistic (ever see a scientist propose that the universe itself just decided to make something happen-- your pantheistic nonsense, that is...)
This leaves room for what I'd consider "religious beliefs" that can exist without contradicting science. (Sorry. Not much time to get into more detail than that). I also freely admit when I don't know exactly how something works.
Religion is the antithesis of rational thought. HOW DO YOU COME TO "RELIGIOUS CONCLUSIONS"? Obviously, it's not through data-gathering or critical thinking-- it's from being easily swayed by "THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS", as in your case, or from being exceptionally gullible (as is also in your case).
Anything which makes a statement about reality can be approached by science. Science can tell us what morals come from (that is, how we decide what is moral, along with all other decision-making processes) but can't tell us what IS moral-- that's subjective and can't be approached objectively.
You are just struggling to get your precious religion to fit in with your "crap" worldview. You twist things to instead wait on evidence you wait until something disproves your claim (anyone could tell you that's impossible, as I did already), you are purposefully vague (religion is meant to describe things science can't. I will say nothing regarding how those "things" are decided so I can attempt to look smart). You also attempt to look smart by using the word "metaphysics", which a
By what you and many others say, religion is knowing what "can't be known". That's great, so how does one come to a conclusion, religion-wise? Gut-feeling or by making it up. How nice. How reliable.
Things like morals do not exist objectively, they are subjective interpretation and feelings.
You just want and need an excuse for having weird beliefs.
Of course life "could have" come from another planet. Science, unlike religion, does not claim to know the truth absolutely and recognizes it is fallible.
However, it certainly relies on more assumptions and web-weaving to construct a scenario where life was created or came from another planet. (Although it both cases it begs the question of where the creator came from-- if a creator doesn't need to be created, why can't you ascribe that to life? They say every watch has a maker, but every "maker" is also made.).
There is no evidence to support that statement. We do not make up crazy ideas and try to find out how they are wrong (like I said, any number of assumptions could "prove" an idea to be right or very likely") but we look at what's available to us now and draw out the most likely path it took.
Why do we have heliocentric theory now, when epicycles could predict the motion of the planets very well under platonic cosmology?
"Pop philosophy"? Oh, just because I don't subscribe to ancient "Eastern Wisdom"? I never said that any non-scientific statement is worthless, as science itself is based on philosophy. So much for science being "pop philosophy", O Enlightened Chinese... heh, wisdom of the ancients... The "wisdom of the ancients" isn't building us rovers to go to Mars, modern science is.
Anything making an empirical claim is within the reach of science or at least the methodologies behind it. If it's not testable, it might as well not be there-- and even if it is, there is no reason to assume so, as there will never be justification to believe it's there. If there is a god, spirit, or anything supernatural, we will have nothing to show us it's there-- no evidence.
Conceptual claims, which much of science and philosophy are based on, are obviously not really scientific, but they can be a part of science, and possibly can be backed up by scientific methods itself. Obviously, Occam's razor is not necessarily a scientific claim but a conceptual one.
Unlike you, anything I believe can be shown to be based on flimsy evidence, or can be backed up by more or stronger evidence. You go on "gut feeling" or because you like the way it sounds.
And, believe it or not, if we don't know exactly how something works or if it exists, we... we say so! Imagine that! No inventing silly deities, magical forces, etc, instead we look for a suitable answer!
A mind virus? Relying on direct observation and verification a "mind virus"?
You may have a funny way of justifying your weird beliefs by making a huge web of rationalizations, but I'll just go on my observations.
Oh, and if you knew anything about philosophy and science, you'd know that there is no such thing as an absolute proof and one does not need an absolute proof to claim to know anything. Why, again, are you in a SCIENCE topic if you don't know something that simple?
Shouldn't you have solid evidence of your religion's claim, instead of requiring discoveries to come along to contradict it? Not every claim can be contradicted-- that's what falsifiability is all about.
Religion is unscientific and has no epistemological value whatsoever. It really is a "mind virus".
Anyway, life on Mars doesn't disprove any religion any more than it proves abiogenesis. ANY belief system can be justified with the right number of assumptions. If something like life on mars comes along, here's what will happen:
1. They'll first deny it 2. They will continue to deny it 3. Eventually scientific fact will slowly but surely embed itself into society, even if the topic is still controversial (evolution). 4. They'll think up more assumptions to let the new observations fit (the claim that god directed evolution and the 7-days story in the bible is metaphorical).
Essentially, the best assumptions are the fewest and the ones which fit into our observations the best. A consistent, materialistic world makes more sense than a random, "ghosts-and-goblins" supernatural one.
I imagine the only ones who can do that are actual Linux providers. The average person can't do anything. The law is not designed for the interests of free software.
I was planning on staying out of this topic because most humans are too stupid to discuss things rationally on this, but you make good points, and I applaud your use of your brain.
As far as porn goes, women are often respected and idolized in porn, not treated as property. It's the men who have it hard in porn-- they can't fake orgasms, they are in lower demand (after all, porn mostly appeals to males, who have a higher sex drive), etc etc. I've read this by a female porn star, mind you-- I came across a personal web site (not the "ooo nudie pics" one, it wasn't porn) and she described how it's generally harder on males.
Also, porn stars are probably the SAFEST group you could have sex with-- they are checked monthly and usually one have sex with the same group of people. You are far more likely to get an STD from some whore at a party than from a porn star.
Christian minds typically are diseased, irrational minds, because there is no rational basis in which to be a Christian, let alone any other religion, from Wicca to Buddhism.
You entire argument is constructed not to bring any rational arguments but to simply use extreme cases to fuel emotion in which to drum up support for your cause.
How does the viewing of "beastiality", while disgusting, actually HARM a child? Oh, that's right, they become "impure" so Jesus won't allow them into heaven... haha!
I saw the sites. Litered with words such as "immoral", "deviant", and "family values", along with multiple fallacies (people who view porn get "addicted" by wanting to see it? Good heavens, natural sexual libido has NOTHING to do with that!), and other "correlations means causation" fallacies. I found them very laughable and poorly conducted studies, usually by biased, Christian types.
Here's an interesting link that's relevent to this topic: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11043
Your whole argument rests upon "I feel X emotions in regard to events A, B, and C, so therefore, A, B, and C will lead to harmful consequences.
Also, you throw in "not mentally equipped to handle" as if that has any scientific basis. It doesn't. It's the same tired, repeated phrase that I hear too often.
If you're afraid of children getting a corrupted view of sex, then yes, that'll happen-- until they grow up. You see, people don't retain the same ideas they had in childhood. I'm no longer an irrational Christian but an atheist. I no longer think people can have telepathic powers. I learned that people lied to me, that the media exaggerates, that people repeat things blindly and stupidly. So where's *MY* damaged view of reality? Perhaps yours is.
All I hear is that kids aren't "emotionally ready" to hear about these kind of things. This statement never has any backing, it's just one of those generic "buzzword phrases" people repeat like sheep because they HAVE NO BACKING EXCEPT FOR THEIR EMOTIONS.
Religion certainly is far worse than this pornography you speak of, as it gives children a twisted view of reality and corrupts their sense of logic and rationality, trapping them (usually their entire life) into a system of make-believe and sometimes hateful propaganda.
Maybe "G" movies are even worse. They give a twisted, naive view of reality. People lie, cheat, and steal, but you won't see that on "Winnie the Pooh's trip to the Circus". Reality is a NC-17. I was shielded when I was very young and as a result I was gullible and easily tricked for a long time until I wisened up. Perhaps if you concentrated on the truth, and not your every emotion, you would be able to see that.
Slashdot Mirror
So humans have a magical innate ability to "just be right"? Please. As for "too much rationality", you're an idiot. That's like being "too healthy"...
Er, first sentence should read:
"I've never seen any statement of Einstein's about Buddhism, but I can't believe you would suggest that just because he had things to say about it means it influenced his opinion on physics!"
I've never seen any statement of Einstein's about Buddhism, but I can't believe you would suggest that just because he had things to say about it doesn't mean it influenced his opinion on physics!
But Einstein was not the supergreat scientist he is made out to be. Einstein himself did make the mistake of relying on his intuition-- he rejected quantum mechanics based on his gut feelings, and it looks more and more like he was wrong. A true scientist does not reject something with supporting evidence based on "gut feeling".
I state that you do not have any idea what the company is doing. The innuendo is that you are ignorant. The truth is you are jus' plain st00pid.
Seriously, can you read that letter and take them seriously?
It's more like having an intuitive sense of the world around you without needing to rely on rational thought all of the time. Anyone who is great at fact-gathering and reason alone would make a passable scientist at best. The greats are able to combine these abilities with intuition and insight to arrive at the big theorems that nobody else could foresee. You shouldn't take gut-feelings so lightly, friend.
Certainly spoken like someone who never took a physics class. If there is no way to verify this so-called "intuition", what good is it?
We have a surprising amount of agreement on morals between many different cultures. It's probably more than just "subjective interpretation and fellings", but that's another discussion.
Which would be accounted by the "many morals are instinctual" school of thought. Besides what we "feel" is moral, what makes it true, objective right-and-wrong? Nothing. It's all complete opinion.
You seem to think that any thoughts that cannot be verified in a lab are worthless. Not the most productive world-view.
Things do not need to be verified in a lab to be confirmed-- but personal, subjective intepretation like "Wow, those look like spirits, they must be DEAD HUMAN SOULS!" is what is counter-productive. That's why we operate on the principle of least assumptions as possible-- Occam's razor.
That is exactly the problem of his claptrap. I found that the believers eventually get down to "faith", and then accuse the scientific types of being religious even though they don't have the slightest idea what the difference between faith and empiricism is.
Sadly, they believe in "absolute proof", that things can be "mathematically proven" (which in itself is a myth!), which is their out on whenever there is no evidence that shows previous evidence was likely to be wrong or misinterpreted. They think things must be disproven in order to be invalid, and that's simply not the case. They don't understand how an elaborate system of assumptions could make -ANY- thing true, no matter what is observed!
Science gives us testibility, verification, etc. Science is designed to fix itself-- although some "scientists" may lack integrity, that certainly not true of most scientists.
Religion, on the other hand, just claims knowledge. It's ridiculous that people still adopt that fallatic and archaeic way of thinking in these modern times, but eh... people are stupid, I guess.
Yes, there are things people will never know. And there is no need for religion to speculate on it, because it's not fact or knowledge: it's speculation, that's all it is, and much of time it's most likely not true.
If we can't know it, don't try to find an answer.
I never said science was pop philosophy. I love science. I'm saying your analysis of religion and beliefs are pop philosophy.
Yeah, anything that disagrees with the GREAT FORCE OF KNOWLEDGE that is Taoism is "pop philosophy".
Pop philosophy? Ha! Pop philosophy, if anything, is the eastern claptrap you have fallen for hook, like, and sinker. People are fascinated with that trash nowadays-- just look at the Matrix, THAT is pop philosophy.
[quote]
I agree, all empirical claims are within the reach of science. But scientific thought (as is probably all thought) is based on a metaphysical framework. As can seen by the advances science has given us, the framework upon which science is supported is fantastic FOR WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO.[/quote]
Which is to make observations of and describe the universe, which leaves no room for religion except to control people.
[quote]
I'd argue, however, that science isn't the right tool for all problems. Like a sense of well-being, compassion, or morals.
Those are philosophical topics. Many philosophers, scientists, and including myself, agree that they are subjective things-- you cannot subjective morality as a true outside force.
Well-being, though, is very scientific as scientifics can or will be more able to one day describe the workings of the brain. Compassion, of course, is another instinctual part of us, as is morals-- the brain chemistry of morals is discussed in this months Discover.
I never told you what I believed in. I don't believe in silly deities or magical forces. You just wanted to be an asshole and assume it about me because I dared to give you an opinion other than your own. I am a pantheist (some would say that I'm really an atheist).
I know exactly what a pantheist is, it's semantic nonsense. "All is God". Sure, only if you define "All" to mean "God". Of course, the traditional definition of "god" includes "concious being" of some sort-- and there is no evidence to support that assertion of all. If that isn't what you mean by god, then it's painfully obvious you want to call yourself a "god believer" while not really believing in a true deity.
I don't believe in the supernatural. I also believe that no materialistic view of the world can explain all physical phenomenon without contradiction.
If it's not materialistic, it's supernatural, Mr. Pop Philosophy Eastern Claptrap. You have yet to explain how materialism is contradictory when science itself is materialistic (ever see a scientist propose that the universe itself just decided to make something happen-- your pantheistic nonsense, that is...)
This leaves room for what I'd consider "religious beliefs" that can exist without contradicting science. (Sorry. Not much time to get into more detail than that). I also freely admit when I don't know exactly how something works.
Religion is the antithesis of rational thought. HOW DO YOU COME TO "RELIGIOUS CONCLUSIONS"? Obviously, it's not through data-gathering or critical thinking-- it's from being easily swayed by "THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS", as in your case, or from being exceptionally gullible (as is also in your case).
Anything which makes a statement about reality can be approached by science. Science can tell us what morals come from (that is, how we decide what is moral, along with all other decision-making processes) but can't tell us what IS moral-- that's subjective and can't be approached objectively.
You are just struggling to get your precious religion to fit in with your "crap" worldview. You twist things to instead wait on evidence you wait until something disproves your claim (anyone could tell you that's impossible, as I did already), you are purposefully vague (religion is meant to describe things science can't. I will say nothing regarding how those "things" are decided so I can attempt to look smart). You also attempt to look smart by using the word "metaphysics", which a
By what you and many others say, religion is knowing what "can't be known". That's great, so how does one come to a conclusion, religion-wise? Gut-feeling or by making it up. How nice. How reliable.
Things like morals do not exist objectively, they are subjective interpretation and feelings.
You just want and need an excuse for having weird beliefs.
Quit bitching about "kids these days" and "the good ole' times".
That's essentially what he seems to be doing.
Of course life "could have" come from another planet. Science, unlike religion, does not claim to know the truth absolutely and recognizes it is fallible.
However, it certainly relies on more assumptions and web-weaving to construct a scenario where life was created or came from another planet. (Although it both cases it begs the question of where the creator came from-- if a creator doesn't need to be created, why can't you ascribe that to life? They say every watch has a maker, but every "maker" is also made.).
There is no evidence to support that statement. We do not make up crazy ideas and try to find out how they are wrong (like I said, any number of assumptions could "prove" an idea to be right or very likely") but we look at what's available to us now and draw out the most likely path it took.
Why do we have heliocentric theory now, when epicycles could predict the motion of the planets very well under platonic cosmology?
"Pop philosophy"? Oh, just because I don't subscribe to ancient "Eastern Wisdom"? I never said that any non-scientific statement is worthless, as science itself is based on philosophy. So much for science being "pop philosophy", O Enlightened Chinese... heh, wisdom of the ancients... The "wisdom of the ancients" isn't building us rovers to go to Mars, modern science is.
Anything making an empirical claim is within the reach of science or at least the methodologies behind it. If it's not testable, it might as well not be there-- and even if it is, there is no reason to assume so, as there will never be justification to believe it's there. If there is a god, spirit, or anything supernatural, we will have nothing to show us it's there-- no evidence.
Conceptual claims, which much of science and philosophy are based on, are obviously not really scientific, but they can be a part of science, and possibly can be backed up by scientific methods itself. Obviously, Occam's razor is not necessarily a scientific claim but a conceptual one.
Unlike you, anything I believe can be shown to be based on flimsy evidence, or can be backed up by more or stronger evidence. You go on "gut feeling" or because you like the way it sounds.
And, believe it or not, if we don't know exactly how something works or if it exists, we... we say so! Imagine that! No inventing silly deities, magical forces, etc, instead we look for a suitable answer!
A mind virus? Relying on direct observation and verification a "mind virus"?
You may have a funny way of justifying your weird beliefs by making a huge web of rationalizations, but I'll just go on my observations.
Oh, and if you knew anything about philosophy and science, you'd know that there is no such thing as an absolute proof and one does not need an absolute proof to claim to know anything. Why, again, are you in a SCIENCE topic if you don't know something that simple?
Shouldn't you have solid evidence of your religion's claim, instead of requiring discoveries to come along to contradict it? Not every claim can be contradicted-- that's what falsifiability is all about.
Religion is unscientific and has no epistemological value whatsoever. It really is a "mind virus".
Anyway, life on Mars doesn't disprove any religion any more than it proves abiogenesis. ANY belief system can be justified with the right number of assumptions. If something like life on mars comes along, here's what will happen:
1. They'll first deny it
2. They will continue to deny it
3. Eventually scientific fact will slowly but surely embed itself into society, even if the topic is still controversial (evolution).
4. They'll think up more assumptions to let the new observations fit (the claim that god directed evolution and the 7-days story in the bible is metaphorical).
Essentially, the best assumptions are the fewest and the ones which fit into our observations the best. A consistent, materialistic world makes more sense than a random, "ghosts-and-goblins" supernatural one.
That's assuming life is somehow "special" in the first place. "Special" is a subjective quality... how do you measure how "special" something is?
I imagine the only ones who can do that are actual Linux providers. The average person can't do anything. The law is not designed for the interests of free software.
I'm waiting for someone to post that goddamn redundant Chewbacca defense again.
That's why it's called DRM. So they can 'manage' your rights.
New MP3 DRM technology cracked; DMCA invoked in lawsuit...
I was planning on staying out of this topic because most humans are too stupid to discuss things rationally on this, but you make good points, and I applaud your use of your brain.
As far as porn goes, women are often respected and idolized in porn, not treated as property. It's the men who have it hard in porn-- they can't fake orgasms, they are in lower demand (after all, porn mostly appeals to males, who have a higher sex drive), etc etc. I've read this by a female porn star, mind you-- I came across a personal web site (not the "ooo nudie pics" one, it wasn't porn) and she described how it's generally harder on males.
Also, porn stars are probably the SAFEST group you could have sex with-- they are checked monthly and usually one have sex with the same group of people. You are far more likely to get an STD from some whore at a party than from a porn star.
And it's people like you who make it that way.
Christian minds typically are diseased, irrational minds, because there is no rational basis in which to be a Christian, let alone any other religion, from Wicca to Buddhism.
You entire argument is constructed not to bring any rational arguments but to simply use extreme cases to fuel emotion in which to drum up support for your cause.
How does the viewing of "beastiality", while disgusting, actually HARM a child? Oh, that's right, they become "impure" so Jesus won't allow them into heaven... haha!
Thank you for your clear, concise, scientific response.
I saw the sites. Litered with words such as "immoral", "deviant", and "family values", along with multiple fallacies (people who view porn get "addicted" by wanting to see it? Good heavens, natural sexual libido has NOTHING to do with that!), and other "correlations means causation" fallacies. I found them very laughable and poorly conducted studies, usually by biased, Christian types.
Here's an interesting link that's relevent to this topic: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11043
Your whole argument rests upon "I feel X emotions in regard to events A, B, and C, so therefore, A, B, and C will lead to harmful consequences.
Also, you throw in "not mentally equipped to handle" as if that has any scientific basis. It doesn't. It's the same tired, repeated phrase that I hear too often.
If you're afraid of children getting a corrupted view of sex, then yes, that'll happen-- until they grow up. You see, people don't retain the same ideas they had in childhood. I'm no longer an irrational Christian but an atheist. I no longer think people can have telepathic powers. I learned that people lied to me, that the media exaggerates, that people repeat things blindly and stupidly. So where's *MY* damaged view of reality? Perhaps yours is.
Why does sex need to be "love making"?
All I hear is that kids aren't "emotionally ready" to hear about these kind of things. This statement never has any backing, it's just one of those generic "buzzword phrases" people repeat like sheep because they HAVE NO BACKING EXCEPT FOR THEIR EMOTIONS.
Religion certainly is far worse than this pornography you speak of, as it gives children a twisted view of reality and corrupts their sense of logic and rationality, trapping them (usually their entire life) into a system of make-believe and sometimes hateful propaganda.
Maybe "G" movies are even worse. They give a twisted, naive view of reality. People lie, cheat, and steal, but you won't see that on "Winnie the Pooh's trip to the Circus". Reality is a NC-17. I was shielded when I was very young and as a result I was gullible and easily tricked for a long time until I wisened up. Perhaps if you concentrated on the truth, and not your every emotion, you would be able to see that.