TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- science saved my soul
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Is that terribly deviant from the essence of the original post's video? And IGK, why don't you humour me. It would be the first time some humour came from you.

Lollerskittles!!!

I guess this conversation did end up in happiness

Rather nice, but the video rubs me the wrong way. There's a quasi-theological tone that is quite ironic given its rejection of theological claims

whoever made that chart is a twat linking nou to peter the great when hes clearly napoleon i mean those troll headhunters arent going to micomanage themselves they need foresight n' shit

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Rather nice, but the video rubs me the wrong way. There's a quasi-theological tone that is quite ironic given its rejection of theological claims

ditto

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Rather nice, but the video rubs me the wrong way. There's a quasi-theological tone that is quite ironic given its rejection of theological claims

It's called sarcasm, look it up!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Rather nice, but the video rubs me the wrong way. There's a quasi-theological tone that is quite ironic given its rejection of theological claims

That�s because your atheism is as soft-cocked as atheism can get.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN That�s because your atheism is as soft-cocked as atheism can get.

That's what I've been telling him for months now...

Also, it's Ricky Gervais talking in the video.

quote:

Originally posted by Saka Sounds like a douche, I mean, who stands outside that long smoking before looking up, when its pitch black? If he listens to science so much why hasn't he stopped smoking? rofl

because, unlike religion, science only gave him the facts and he has to make the choice as to whether quit smoking or not.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Also, it's Ricky Gervais talking in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/philhel...u/0/wbrQI0r1B7w

doesn't seem that way

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN That�s because your atheism is as soft-cocked as atheism can get.

Actually, I'd say my atheism is so rock-hard it'd be the stiffest of all hard-cocked atheisms in your analogy. I should probably call it "throbbing atheism", and here's why (for brevity's sake, I'm going to post links whenever I can resort to someone else's views to summarise my own):

no.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no.

Really, I can't swallow it!

religion is not mysticism. you'd think he'd know the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec religion is not mysticism. you'd think he'd know the difference.

That's like saying apples are not fruits.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And this video's metaphorical semen left me with a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something I can swallow.

Maybe youre just not enough of a science nerd to swallow it?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Actually, I'd say my atheism is so rock-hard it'd be the stiffest of all hard-cocked atheisms in your analogy. I should probably call it "throbbing atheism", and here's why (for brevity's sake, I'm going to post links whenever I can resort to someone else's views to summarise my own): I'd say most people, rather naïvely, subscribe to a simplified correspondence theory of truth. When the layman says "there's a cat on the mat", there'd better a small animal with fur, four legs, a tail and claws, usually kept as a pet, on a small piece of strong material which covers and protects part of the floor; and, when they say "there's a God in the universe" or "water's made up of atoms", they take both statements to represent actual states of affairs, which may (not) correspond to what can be found in the world. Hence there's one single truth, because there's just one reality, and to say something is true is to say it mirrors reality perfectly. You can find objections to this theory in the article I linked to. This view of truth serves religion fairly well, and it's no surprise that Veritas (which is cognate with the word I use in my vernacular language for truth) was herself a Roman god. The Bible loves truth, and people like St. John are all too eager to claim not only there's one truth but "whoever lives by the truth comes into the light" (John 3:21)... and, let's not forget, you can show your love saving others from a sinful life through the truth. This makes truth quite a desirable thing for anyone with a brain... and it's worked wonders for scientists too! Galileo certainly believe that the Earth DID move (and this belief corresponded to reality), and that there could not be two truths (How on Earth can the Earth both move and not move!?). I doubt he'd have any of this madness. Now, I'm not exactly a fan of Reality with a capital "R". Likewise, I don't think it makes any sense to believe in The truth. I'd be even hard-pressed to accept there's one single kind of truth, which brings us back to my so-stiff-it-aches atheism. The Atheist Truth, that is, "There is no God" sounds too much alike its negation, religiously wise. That's the truth, there is no God. Nix. Zilch. Zero. Why? Because there isn't any evidence God exists (or, rather, there's plenty of evidence he doesn't exist), so it's pretty safe to say this corresponds to reality. Postulating the existence of a supernatural realm, as opposed to our natural world, has little explanatory power and only leads to more confusion. Good, now let's tell everyone else they're mistaken and save them from their errors and... hmm... déjà vu? So evil, this religion stuff. No, what kills is not religion. If anything, we should pipe down and tell atheists that science has working truths (which are quite ephemeral in the sense that they're always being replaced anyway) and if we want to make sure religious truths and scientific truths aren't the same thing, we may go on and say that "if scientific statements are to be called truths, religious statements should be called something else—comforts, perhaps" (pg. 181) In the end, what we need is not to get rid of God (though I'd definitely not mind that, I'd prefer if some sort of godless Christianity or a naturalist Islam replaced their current versions). Perhaps there's a useful insight or two from any given religion that we should keep, and religious folks might remind us every so often that they aren't all mentally handicapped (but some probably are intellectually lazy). What we need to ditch is certainty, and the passion that may come with the perception that one is certain and obliged to show others the way. Until the last man has had the last experience, there's no final word we can give about anything. It bothers a lot when atheists think that theories (which can be perfected) are as certain as mundane truths we take for granted (like the Earth being round). We can't know what new facts we're going to encounter in the future, and fossilising contemporary truths is no better than being religious (and I've seen it happen way too often). What we can do, however, is tell what works (and what doesn't). Believing that there was a big bang and that we came from stardust is a rather good idea now thanks to its explanatory power... but no one knows what's to come. Newtonian physics had a firm foundation until Einstein replaced it, remember? CORe version: Actually, I'm more of an atheist than you are because I have one less religious idea in my repertoire. Ergo, I espouse an adamantine-cocked atheism. And this video's metaphorical semen left me with a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something I can swallow.

wow thats a mouth full. what was that in response to? can't we get back to happiness?

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Maybe youre just not enough of a science nerd to swallow it?

But... I'm actually a scientist

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow wow thats a mouth full. what was that in response to? can't we get back to happiness?

PKC and Oscar believe "[my] atheism is as soft-cocked as atheism can get", and I told them that, as a matter of fact, it's the other way around.

I wasn't aware there was a soft/hard version. I thought it was like being pregnant you either are or you aren't. I'm agnostic so it affords me a little more latitude. I'm 99% sure God doesn't exist but leave 1% open for human error.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But... I'm actually a scientist

Linguists dont count They never includes huge explosions which is the prerequisite to be officially declared a scientist. If you've never blown anything up in orer to expand your field of study youre not a proper scientist

Interesting couple of paragraphs you wrote, but I don't see how that demonstrates that you have a throbbing diamond hard cock for atheism. Thinking that there's a brand of atheism that's equivalent to religious fundamentalism isn't really an argument at all.

In fact, I know that you're a smart person so I'll be fairly justified in my assumption that you are an atheist because you are pretty certain that it corresponds to the relevant, every-day experience that we call reality better than any religion. Why do you assume, then, that an extreme there-is-certainly-no-god-whatsoever brand of atheism that sounds too much like a religion for your comfort would result in the same upfucketry () as, say, Catholicism? After all, you think atheism matches reality much better, and thus it's eventual "dogmatism" (for lack of a better word) about gods would match reality better?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira What we can do, however, is tell what works (and what doesn't). Believing that there was a big bang and that we came from stardust is a rather good idea now thanks to its explanatory power... but no one knows what's to come. Newtonian physics had a firm foundation until Einstein replaced it, remember? CORe version: Actually, I'm more of an atheist than you are because I have one less religious idea in my repertoire. Ergo, I espouse an adamantine-cocked atheism.

Actually, Einstein didn't replace Newtonian Physics, he just came up with a solution for the fact that it breaks down at the very large (relativity) and very small (quantum mechanics). Newtonian physics still describes phenomena at our scale of the Universe.

P.S. I'm not saying that Einstein came up with quantum mechanics, but I can't be arsed to phrase that last paragraph differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Linguists dont count They never includes huge explosions which is the prerequisite to be officially declared a scientist. If you've never blown anything up in order to expand your field of study youre not a proper scientist

Does it count if I make my informants' head asplode?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Interesting couple of paragraphs you wrote, but I don't see how that demonstrates that you have a throbbing diamond hard cock for atheism. Thinking that there's a brand of atheism that's equivalent to religious fundamentalism isn't really an argument at all.

True, thinking that atheism can be equivalent to religious fundamentalism isn't really an argument; however, providing arguments in order to back up this claim is not only a better approach but what I seek to do. And, thankfully, this sort of argumentation won't require a full-blown theory of religion, but a careful analysis of our own -- wait for it! -- language

To reduce (a)theism to the position that you believe God does(n't) exist is an oversimplification. Sure, it encompasses what everyone in this group thinks about a certain preposition, but theists don't think all alike, nor do atheists (as we can easily see here ). Therefore, believing that one's off the hook simply because this person does not share a completely unrelated belief with someone else is a completely misguided illusion.

For argument's sake, let me coin the word "Foundamentalist" (mind the "o") to describe the person who considers an idea to be the foundation of all his other beliefs (I'm doing this just to avoid the loaded meaning of the cognate word we've been using thus far). No contradictory idea can be accepted in his web of belief, as it would undermine the whole web. This definition accommodates intelligent design proponents rather nicely because the concept of a godless evolution goes against their most deeply ingrained beliefs - the solution is to make it god-friendly again and they're set.

Now, foundamentalism itself need not be pernicious, as it might be even inescapable: beliefs are not created equal, and I'd be way more reluctant to accept the claim that I'm mistaken about being left-handed than to believe I was actually born in Copenhagen (though I'd need someone to tell me why my parents never mentioned about a trip to Denmark back when I was born). This in itself is not exactly problematic. Though it can be if we become socially foundamentalists and our dearest ideas aren't shared by others. This is what I'm getting at.

No atheist, as far as I'm aware, has ever blown up churches and mosques to prove a point; however, being an atheist is not enough to make the world a better place where people don't kill others because of their different beliefs, as the Soviets painfully showed us coming up with a materialist ideology as deadly as any superstition. What went wrong? They were socially foundamentalists, in the sense that they were so sure their most basic views were "true" (and had to be imposed on everyone else) that they did just that. So much for being godless.

That's the idea that I'm against: It's no surprise to me that Sam Harris is so Fledzly abrasive when it comes to a fallibilist tradition in The End of Faith (look it up, pages 179-80). He's a social foundamentalist in the sense that he'd love to see everyone espousing his atheism. The difference then becomes a matter of degree: I can't recall ever seeing a priest blowing things up either, can you? Apparently, religion doesn't poison everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar In fact, I know that you're a smart person so I'll be fairly justified in my assumption that you are an atheist because you are pretty certain that it corresponds to the relevant, every-day experience that we call reality better than any religion. Why do you assume, then, that an extreme there-is-certainly-no-god-whatsoever brand of atheism that sounds too much like a religion for your comfort would result in the same upfucketry () as, say, Catholicism?

Because the problem is not supernaturalism, as I stated, but the view that everyone should conform to a given mindset. The problem of doing this is that it actually hinders progress, no matter how much atheists think it's going to lead to a world of awesomeness. Need one more example other than what happened when socialism fossilised in Soviet Russia?

Here in Brazil Japanese immigrants started killing each other because a small group refused to believe Japan had lost the war. There was no supernatural appeal (not like we're used to), and this is just a political fact: an army beat another, full stop. Dismantling religion would do nothing to prevent what happened, as victorists started to kill off naysayers based on social concepts like honour and love for one's land. You know what would've prevented this? Yeah, coming to terms with the fact that we can be wrong (as both religious and political extremists tend to get violent when they believe their hobby-horses are being threatened, and they love it so much!).

quote:

Originally posted by woscar After all, you think atheism matches reality much better, and thus it's eventual "dogmatism" (for lack of a better word) about gods would match reality better?

Actually, my views regarding this are way more complicated

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Actually, Einstein didn't replace Newtonian Physics, he just came up with a solution for the fact that it breaks down at the very large (relativity) and very small (quantum mechanics). Newtonian physics still describes phenomena at our scale of the Universe. P.S. I'm not saying that Einstein came up with quantum mechanics, but I can't be arsed to phrase that last paragraph differently.

Well, Einstein is a heir of the Newtonian tradition and of course his worldviews agreed with Newton's to a large extent so that's why I felt comfortable using that verb. It replaced all that could be fixed, and of course it didn't discard what didn't need to be changed.

I just can't think of a better verb that conveys a better meaning here.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.