Epicedion: Hi, Gil.

I think that this is true, but there needs to be some work done to show that something is a nonscientific matter.

Howdy, Epiceidon.

Well, as I understood it - and please correct me if I read you wrong - Feynman's quote about philosophy of science was in answer to Diogenes The Cynic's statement where he said:

Science has little place in a debate about G-d. Philosophy yes, but science, no.

You see, scientists are the drooling retarded step-brothers of the philosophers, and they would still be trying to turn lead into gold if they didn't have the scientific method invented for them. By philosophers, mind you.

Thus here, he was talking about the relationship between philosophers and scientists, and what sorts of things were investigable by science, and which were not.

If that is so, then - once again, please correct me if I read you wrong - it appeared that you were quoting Feynman as a way to dismiss philosophy of science as inconsequential.

Feynman, as his second quote shows, was pretty aware of when he was speaking about his areas of expertise, and when he was not, and in typical fashion, reminds the audience with a wink to not take him too seriously outside the realm of physics. Thus, the question of philosophy and science cannot be settled by appealing to his authority.

So, then, it seems to me that when you correctly state that we need "some work done to show that something is a nonscientific matter," would you not agree that this work is, by necessity, philosophical in nature?

Boatmech: Keizer_Ghidorah: 180IQ: omeganuepsilon:A smart being recognizes the fact that an injustice on another could just as well have happened to him instead under different circumstances. Ergo he attempts to structure society to safeguard himself(and others).

No morals, philosophy, or religion needed.

So ... how do we know what is and is not just? Oh, philosophy.

So ... how do we know what is and is not ethical? Oh, philosophy.

civil rights are a byproduct of intelligence protecting itself at the basest levels.

How do we know what rights are and ought to be? Oh, philosophy.

As a side note: If what you're saying is true, why do people in power so often act to restrict the rights of others?

What's your beef with philosophy anyway? Philosophy gave us science, mathematics, logic, and democracy. If you need something more modern, it put a quick end to computationalist approaches to strong AI -- saving billions of dollars -- and funding more productive avenues of research.

Philosophy isn't idle speculation, you know .-- Wait, you clearly don't know!

So, what set you off on your tirade for the defense of philosophy? I don't think anyone here said anything about it, positive or negative. You're not making a good light of yourself or what you believe with the way you're acting.

`
Keizer, if you look at his previous posts you might notice this little AW is much more interested in the sound of his own voice than actual debate or dialog.
/kinda sad actually

I know, I'm just giving him the opportunity to rationally explain himself. If he doesn't, then more power to him and he can piss off.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Boatmech: Keizer_Ghidorah: 180IQ: omeganuepsilon:
`
I know, I'm just giving him the opportunity to rationally explain himself. If he doesn't, then more power to him and he can piss off.
`


'K

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, what set you off on your tirade for the defense of philosophy? I don't think anyone here said anything about it, positive or negative.

Who? The person I replied to! I even quoted him.

You're not making a good light of yourself or what you believe with the way you're acting.

Yeah, I quit caring once I realized I that productive discussion was impossible.

180IQ: As a side note: If what you're saying is true, why do people in power so often act to restrict the rights of others?

We still live in an age where survival of the fittest(is most powerful) is still quite a valid option to aid in survival. It's a different means to the same goal.

180IQ: What's your beef with philosophy anyway?

Nothing, but it is inatiquated beyond usefulness.

Stop painting yourself a victim. I'm sorry your degree in basket weaving didn't pay off.

180IQ: Philosophy isn't idle speculation, you know .-- Wait, you clearly don't know!

Actually, since you're being quite vague with the word, it is precisely that. Idle speculation.

Sure, it resulted in what we know as the scientific process, via proper logic(what is proof? etc), but really, the concept of science pre-dates philosophy, it just wasn't named. Science, in practice, is as old as cognitive thought, not modern intellect of man. Problem solving in it's simplest forms is science, just not refined.

Boatmech: So ... how do we know what....blah blah blah

Wrong. What is just? Whatever popular opinion says it is. Society defines itself, and is not immutable. Slavery to animal sacrifice, whatever is trendy is pretty much "just" or "ethical" or "right". Things that are un-just are simply currently out of favor. That's it. No grand moral correctness, no poetic and grandoise ideals.

I provided a means of simple rational, that very well could lead to the questions you were asking about(Whar reason for government, whar!?). Why do you hate logic?

Boatmech: AW is much more interested in the sound of his own voice than actual debate or dialog.

Pretty much. But I showed up late in my replies to him, everyone deserves to kick the village thread idiot around for a post or three.

I wonder if it's drugs or what that makes his "logic" leaps nearly incoherant. Reminds me of drunk what.

/which card do you flip?

omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: So ... how do we know what....blah blah blah

Bah, misquote, my bad. I'm sure you gathered as much though.

I hate when atheists say that a belief in a "supreme being" or whatever is illogical. Since ancient times humans have wondered what it all means, why are we here? So they came up with the idea of various versions of gods etc. I don't think it's illogical at all. I think atheists are the illogical ones.

Keizer_Ghidorah: You think that the mind changing because the brain was damaged is a misapplication of science that "born-again atheists" use to attack people and spread nonsense? What? Nothing you've said makes any damn sense.

In the case of Phineas Gage (which I assume you're referring to) a change in the brain caused a change in behavior. You can call that a change in the mind if you want, but that's no longer an empirical statement. (Though I do allow it for ... )

Besides, that's NOT what I was saying at all. I'm saying that the emergentist position is not a scientific one as it has and requires no evidence. It's a conclusion draw only from a set of metaphysical assumptions. (That is, it's a belief common among the "born-again atheists" that is NOT evidence based.)

This isn't difficult.

cybernia: I hate when atheists say that a belief in a "supreme being" or whatever is illogical. Since ancient times humans have wondered what it all means, why are we here? So they came up with the idea of various versions of gods etc. I don't think it's illogical at all. I think atheists are the illogical ones.

Why do you think "why" is a necessary question?

Many times there is no why, it's just how. A sequence of natural events, each event leading to another event. Everything is connected, in a way. Not like ghosts and magic, but contiguous time.

Think of it as a really really really slow avalanche, the original shift caused by one specific snowflake melting. It may be chance that specific snowflake melted, but a snowflake was bound to melt, as the saying goes, it's a matter of course. Plenty of times there is no avalanche, conditions are not met to cause such a grand chain reaction, but just as plentiful are the avalanches.

Belief is not necessarily illogical. Working that belief in to answer questions that are yet unknown, is what is illogical. Thunder and lightning are not god, they've been re-created in the lab, by logic. An eclipse of the sun is not a holy event, it's a simple shadow.

omeganuepsilon: omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: So ... how do we know what....blah blah blah

Bah, misquote, my bad. I'm sure you gathered as much though.

`
Ha, took me a minute but I got it.

Boatmech: omeganuepsilon: omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: So ... how do we know what....blah blah blah

Bah, misquote, my bad. I'm sure you gathered as much though.

`
Ha, took me a minute but I got it.

I almost did it for all the quotes of his, i was reading form your post because it was right there above the post box.

I almost need another widescreen that I can flip sideways just to keep up in these threads.

blueviking: Anyone that forsaketh the pie shall face death by Holy Hand Grenade!

/so long as it be of the varietes: pecan, apple, cherry or French Silk

Base heretic. French silk is little more than PUDDING in a pie shell.

Pudding. REALLY?

cybernia: I hate when atheists say that a belief in a "supreme being" or whatever is illogical. Since ancient times humans have wondered what it all means, why are we here? So they came up with the idea of various versions of gods etc. I don't think it's illogical at all. I think atheists are the illogical ones.

So atheists are illogical but believing in various versions of gods etc is logical?
`
I really hope that's a Troll but just in case - WTF are you talking about?

omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: omeganuepsilon: omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: So ... how do we know what....blah blah blah

Bah, misquote, my bad. I'm sure you gathered as much though.

`
Ha, took me a minute but I got it.

I almost did it for all the quotes of his, i was reading form your post because it was right there above the post box.

I almost need another widescreen that I can flip sideways just to keep up in these threads.

`
Widescreen? Try keeping up on phone.

Boatmech: WTF are you talking about?

That's what I thought but figured I'd take a shot, came up with the avalanche analogy from that chance, I've got a neat toy to refine in other threads/discussion about evolution / creation. Net gain whatever his status/ability is, imo

That's the real reason I like a bit of stream of consciousness now and then, a person tends to stumble upon ideas they may have never have come up with before. I think it's a focus thing, the mind can stray before you finish formulating what you're thinking.

/learned writing on paper, with a pencil, it's got some severe drawbacks
//revision is a pain as well

omeganuepsilon: 180IQ: What's your beef with philosophy anyway?

Nothing, but it is inatiquated beyond usefulness.

What? Just take one modern philosopher, John Searle, for example. His work in philosophy of language is now part of mainstream linguistics. His work on philosophy of mind has had a significant impact on fields ranging from AI research to cognitive neuroscience.

I'd hardly call that antiquated beyond usefulness.

Stop painting yourself a victim. I'm sorry your degree in basket weaving didn't pay off.

What? I never implied I was a victim of anything! I do hold a graduate research degree in the social sciences, which I'm sure you also think is equivalent to underwater basket weaving.

Anyhow, I must have really struck a nerve with you. Did what I have to say hit a bit too close to home?

ununcle: I said "most" were Christian. I probably should've said almost "none" were farking athiest and almost "all" believed in a creator. Is that better? Or do you still believe some of the founding fathers were freaking Muslim?

You really are clueless, aren't you?
Because I quoted Jefferson writing about freedom of religion for Muslims, that means that I think Jefferson was Muslim?
Seriously, take the pants off your head and look at yourself in the mirror. Is that really the best you can do?

omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: WTF are you talking about?

That's what I thought but figured I'd take a shot, came up with the avalanche analogy from that chance, I've got a neat toy to refine in other threads/discussion about evolution / creation. Net gain whatever his status/ability is, imo

That's the real reason I like a bit of stream of consciousness now and then, a person tends to stumble upon ideas they may have never have come up with before. I think it's a focus thing, the mind can stray before you finish formulating what you're thinking.

/learned writing on paper, with a pencil, it's got some severe drawbacks
//revision is a pain as well

Drawbacks such as correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Even worse - being forced to think in complete sentences or heaven forbid a whole paragraph or two.
A certain low IQ poster in this thread comes to mind. Words but no real meaning, juvenile attacks and over reaching comments to draw attention.
/the original white-out was awsome!

180IQ: which I'm sure you also think

BZZZZt, wrong answer.

If you'd actually read my posts, you'd see that.

Also, despiteomeganuepsilon: Actually, since you're being quite vague with the word, it is precisely that. Idle speculation.

You're still equivocating(as a logical/debate fallacy) my comments on philosophy in general with specific types of "philosophy".

180IQ: philosophy of language

That's kind of a misnomer. Language is not so much a philosophical thing as a scientific thing.

You make specific note of "social sciences" instead of "social philosophy", even they amount to the same thing, one just tends to dwell on morals(ethics, almost a pseudo-science in and of itself, one small step above snake handlers) and fuzziness in search for answers, and the other more on cause and effect in search for the same answers.

That same concept stretches across many philosophies. Sure, it gave us logic and some scientific principles, then it touted on it's merry way, talking about lots of different fuzzy things over tea and biscuits.

It gets quite foppish and talks circles around things that are overcomplicated. "The apple fell." Do you really have to spend paragraphs, and page up on page over the philosophy of that statment, "Like, what does 'fell' really, like, mean...man? Hey, puff puff pass"
No. Useless.

99% of philosophers are people trying to sound intelligent yet poetic and deep at the same time. It's so convoluted because every self coined philosopher has been trying for years to outdo his peers by following rules laid out over generations.

It's like a really long game of spoiled kids that all make up rules for intense games of pretend. "You did not shoot me, your gun ran out of bullets!"


What if uh C-A-T really spelled dog?

Spare me.

Boatmech: /the original white-out was awsome!

farking snow, how does that work? ...... Magic all up in this biatch.

/haven't eeked that out in a while
//always comical in and of itself

0Icky0: ununcle: I said "most" were Christian. I probably should've said almost "none" were farking athiest and almost "all" believed in a creator. Is that better? Or do you still believe some of the founding fathers were freaking Muslim?

You really are clueless, aren't you?
Because I quoted Jefferson writing about freedom of religion for Muslims, that means that I think Jefferson was Muslim?
Seriously, take the pants off your head and look at yourself in the mirror. Is that really the best you can do?

`

Muslim! I ain't no damn Muslim!
Damn crackers!

Epicedion: I composed a rather detailed response, but then my internet imploded and ate it. Rather than trying to recreate it on my phone, I'll simply say this: philosophers just aren't very useful. The ones on fark are a combination of not very useful and self-aggrandizing twits.

Even though I just said the same thing, at length purely for self entertainment, I realize I failed to make a specific distinction.

Philosophy does have some limited uses, it's the philosophers that are really the cause of that limitation.

omeganuepsilon: 99% of philosophers are people trying to sound intelligent yet poetic and deep at the same time.

Sorry, but it's pretty clear that you're not familiar with philosophy as a discipline. Go check out some articles from reputable journals on Google Scholar -- they're quite rigorous, and not poetic at all.

It gets quite foppish and talks circles around things that are overcomplicated. "The apple fell." Do you really have to spend paragraphs, and page up on page over the philosophy of that statment, "Like, what does 'fell' really, like, mean...man? Hey, puff puff pass"
No. Useless.

That would be useless. Good luck finding anything like that in the literature, however.

That same concept stretches across many philosophies. Sure, it gave us logic and some scientific principles, then it touted on it's merry way, talking about lots of different fuzzy things over tea and biscuits.

That's the popular conception, but you don't see that same attitude from people familiar with modern philosophy.

What's especially odd, keeping this with the article topic, is that you'll find "born-again atheists" commonly refer to populists hacks like Metzinger and Dennett -- both particularly poor philosophers with no significant contributions -- because they agree strongly with their positions.At the same time, they deride philosophers like Searle, who have made significant contributions to philosophy that have had significant impact on a diverse range of fields (as I mentioned earlier) simply because his contributions make it difficult to hold on to their cherished beliefs. (Beliefs, btw, which are not evidence-based.)

If philosophy were useless or 99% airy-fairy nonsense it wouldn't survive as a discipline. I urge you to take a second look. Philosophy is truly not what you believe it to be.

180IQ: If philosophy were useless or 99% airy-fairy nonsense it wouldn't survive as a discipline.

You misunderstand the power of the self-righteousness.

Could say the sub in Westboro Baptists for philosophy in that sentence and it would hold as much factual information.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about here.

Science is catching up to philosophy and other bogus ways to vaguely interpret the world. But you know feel free to put a leech on it, maybe that will help. If nothing else, perhaps you should just retire to your fainting room, maybe employ your new oscillating contraption to treat your hysteria.

omeganuepsilon: Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about here.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you! I figured that's why you resorted to pointless name-calling.

Anyhow, I've provided a few recent examples of where philosophy has made significant contributions to other disciplines, including scientific fields.

Philosophy has consistently provided the framework that other disciplines operate within -- and continues to do so even in the scientific realm. This is an objective claim well supported by evidence.

I've provided a few examples for you already and I don't see any need to repeat myself, though I'll happily supply more examples provided that you reciprocate with something, anything, to support your viewpoint.

Let's see if you can.

Canned Tamales: Such claims could only be even close to equal for the atheist who says "it's 100% proven that there is no god, gods are all impossible, I know how the universe works entirely and need never look at any other evidence ever again no matter what...

I have never met this atheist, and neither have you."

Thanks for telling me who I have and haven't meant, you must know how the universe and every type of persons another persons encounters in thier lives works.... I HAVE met this this athiest, I'm actually good friends with him and have been since grade school. Yet our conflicting views on this subject never interfere with our visits nor holds any kind of bearing on our loyalty as friends because we respect each others decisions and know if it does gets brought up by either of us we're blatantly being a dick because of that understanding and respect...

/yes I understand the context which you meant that
//yes that is really how he sees it
/love him regardless

180IQ: Philosophy has consistently provided the framework that other disciplines operate within -- and continues to do so even in the scientific realm. This is an objective claim well supported by evidence.

No. Philosophy handed out some building blocks, and comes around six months later with a morsel, and found that the child has learned to hunt on his own, furiously goes back to gabbing, and comes back with the instructions for a proper bow, to find the child using gunpowder. Very occasionally, those 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters hit upon something abstract that is an aid, but is otherwise, not that much of a help.

To say "consistently" implies that there's some sort of regularity over time, not one off contributions that lead to something.

Biology, astronomy, etc, all gained more ground on their own and in much less time than philosophy has been able to bring about. Philosophy also hands out things like alchemy, phrenology, and snake oil tonics with equal support, so take that for what it's worth. None of it rivaling what science has done in the meantime with metallurgy, genetics, and chemistry.

People who learn only philosophy don't really contribute to society, except maybe aid people who can't figure out who they should be, the end up .... wait for it... teaching philosophy. There is no advancement, because it's constant ouroboros action. There is no consistent aid to society even in helping people figuring out what they want, the double speak that flavors philosophy is only justification for the sort of thing you seem to complain about above. It's simply a means of justification of desires, as much as religion is guilty of at any rate, if not more.

Even the "success" stories, when you help someone become a contributing individual, are they doing it for the right reasons? Probably not, because philosophy is just as intellectually corrupt as religion.
Teaching solid "right" and "ethical" is intellectually dishonest, and therefore quite possibly limiting to an individuals potential, and certainly is in times of change.

The right answer, arrived at by the wrong route, can negatively impact other area's where what is learned is falsely put into practice. It's why math teachers always want you to show your work(and consequently, why math and the more firm sciences are more universally understood than any language, religion, or philosophy).

Science has even gone so far as to regulate language for specific things. Get two electronics majors together, and there's little fighting over usage of termX or measurementY, because it's standardized and simplified as much as possible. An ohm cannot be mistaken for a volt, ever, well unless you count coffee spilled on the schematics or O-scope.

You've not named any consistent contributions from philosophy, you've named a man who was possibly brilliant...but you named his actions in the vaguest manner possible. No, you've named a couple of nuggets, and you probably had to hit up google for them. No consistency, nor much signifigance as per your claim.

In short, science took one of philosophy's rare gems, and revolutionized the world, within decades. Decades. It continues to do so at an alarming rate.
It's processes constantly adapt and streamline for clarity, precision, and universal conceptualization.

Many things labeled as a philosophical _________ are philosophical more in name than in practice. All in all, it's less technical science at best(all too rare), and religion-like charlatanry at worst(which is all too common).

Hence, basket weaving. Sorry your education isn't panning out for you. I'm sure, with a couple years(maybe 4 or more in your specific case) more schooling, you could shift over and get enough of a younger science, or arts, to become, say, a High School Counselor, or motivational speaker for fat kids, or take over for Billy Mays.

omeganuepsilon: Biology, astronomy, etc, all gained more ground on their own and in much less time than philosophy has been able to bring about. Philosophy also hands out things like alchemy, phrenology, and snake oil tonics with equal support, so take that for what it's worth.

Well, that's just plain wrong. Alchemy is best described as pre-science and is widely recognized as an important predecessor to modern chemistry. It doesn't fit your bizarre understanding of philosophy at all -- rather, it fits perfectly with your overly-broad concept of science that you (iirc) mention earlier. Phrenology is undoubtedly a scientific failure, not a philosophical one. "Snake oil" stems from several sources, including abuse of poor public understanding of science by scientists or those those adopting the trappings of science. Again, not philosophy.

Philosophy, like every discipline, has its share of failures. If you understood the subject, you'd have pointed those out instead of the nonsense list you made here.

What is the point of that list anyway? What purpose could that serve?

None of it rivaling what science has done in the meantime with metallurgy, genetics, and chemistry.

Wait, are you setting up an philosophy vs. science thing? Do you know how little sense that makes? They're not at odds with one another! Philosophy consistently contributes to a broad range of disciplines including the sciences -- just as philosophy draws on other disciplines, including the natural sciences (philosophy is very much an interdisciplinary effort.)

In short, science took one of philosophy's rare gems, and revolutionized the world, within decades. Decades
Yes, tens of decades, as history records it. It would appear that your understanding of history is as poor as your understanding of philosophy!

People who learn only philosophy don't really contribute to society, except maybe aid people who can't figure out who they should be, the end up .... wait for it... teaching philosophy.
Well, you can't actually study only philosophy as it's very much an interdisciplinary field. If you knew the first thing about it, which you quite obviously do not, you'd know that.

There is no advancement, because it's constant ouroboros action.
Except for the numerous successes of philosophy we see even in modern times that have radically altered established fields.

To say "consistently" implies that there's some sort of regularity over time, not one off contributions that lead to something.
I'll let the historical record stand here. It is in full support of my case.

You've not named any consistent contributions from philosophy, you've named a man who was possibly brilliant...but you named his actions in the vaguest manner possible.
As I said, I named recent contributions. As for the broad successes of philosophy I can offer you various political systems, empiricism, rationalism, reason, logic, mathematics, linguistics, natural science, reductionism, etc., etc. ...

Teaching solid "right" and "ethical" is intellectually dishonest, and therefore quite possibly limiting to an individuals potential, and certainly is in times of change.
This is not an activity that philosophers engage in. If you knew the first thing about philosophy, you'd know this.

Hence, basket weaving. Sorry your education isn't panning out for you.
I'm not a philosopher nor do I hold a degree in philosophy. I hold a graduate research degree in the social sciences.

Science has even gone so far as to regulate language for specific things. Get two electronics majors together, and there's little fighting over usage of termX or measurementY, because it's standardized and simplified as much as possible
Again, you show your ignorance. Much of the language in philosophy is standardized in a similar way. Additionally, philosophers often contribute to definitions used in various scientific disciplines. A great deal of effort is spent clearly defining terms. If you knew anything about philosophy, you'd be aware of this.

Philosophy is far more rigorous that you assume it to be. I presume this is because you obviously don't know the first thing about philosophy.

Many things labeled as a philosophical _________ are philosophical more in name than in practice.

Ah, I see. When philosophy works, it's not philosophy. Sigh ...

Someone once said, and this may be apocryphal as I've heard several different versions of it "The problem with philosophy is that when it hits on something concrete they stop calling it philosophy"

Now, I asked you to provide evidence to support your position as I have. Not surprisingly, you've only made assertions and obviously false claims. Let me give you a chance to fix that.

Let's try this one:
Probably not, because philosophy is just as intellectually corrupt as religion.
How is philosophy "intellectually corrupt"? Do you have any examples?

Of course you don't.

180IQ: Anyhow, the point I intended to make was that the fellow I was replying to very likely held what he believed to be a scientific belief without any evidence. In that case, I assumed that he accepted emergentism, as it's the most common view point. Noting that it is not the only monist position, there is insufficient evidence to hold that belief if you demand, as the other guy does, that all of your beliefs require evidence.

What he really means is that all his beliefs must be subject to empirical investigation -- it doesn't matter if he has evidence, merely being able to posit a natural explanation is sufficient (and that any natural explanation, right or wrong, is preferable to no explanation.) This is why I accused him of Scientism.

Science is wonderful -- if you do it right. Science is too important to me to allow it to be misused and misapplied. The "Born-again" atheist crowd is doing nothing but harm when they spread their nonsense -- far more harm to science than the religious zealots could ever hope to do.

No evidence or insufficient evidence? Did you really mean emergentism? You said "the mind is a product of the brain", which doesn't in my mind specify emergentism. Then you said "your physicalist ideology allows you to come to no other conclusion". You're not noting that it's not the only monist position, you're implying that monism is the problem. No wonder people assume you're promoting mysticism.

Basically, you took issue with something someone said, so you ascribed a set of beliefs to him and asserted that there "no evidence whatsoever" for those beliefs - which isn't strictly true. I can sorta, kinda guess what you're trying to say, but the way you go about it is only going to annoy and alienate people.

Zizzowop: "You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

That is a good observation. Which makes it all the more telling how many people are going out of their way recently to protest that God doesn't exist.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Since I can't see his rebuttals, I'll just establish my classical credentials by insulting him in Latin.

ora tibi infarctura verpulis putidis sit. Euge! nunc podex scorteus in saccum pansum imprimetur cinaedis!

Translation:

pray you, is rotten ones infarctura verpulis. Well done! Now LEATHER ass in the air sack impressed debauch!

on the road: Zizzowop: "You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

That is a good observation. Which makes it all the more telling how many people are going out of their way recently to protest that God doesn't exist.

Except they are not going out of their way to say god doesn't exist. They are going out of their way to stop the religious from trampling the US constitution by exacting religious laws and undermining science education for children.

Boatmech: cybernia: I hate when atheists say that a belief in a "supreme being" or whatever is illogical. Since ancient times humans have wondered what it all means, why are we here? So they came up with the idea of various versions of gods etc. I don't think it's illogical at all. I think atheists are the illogical ones.

So atheists are illogical but believing in various versions of gods etc is logical?
`
I really hope that's a Troll but just in case - WTF are you talking about?

Since the beginning of time, humans have looked to find out the meaning of life, why we exist etc. So, it seems logical, that lacking any concrete answers, humans came up with various scenarios. The idea of deities dates back to the neolithic period. Most people in the world today believe in some sort of "god(s)."

Farking Canuck: on the road: Zizzowop: "You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

That is a good observation. Which makes it all the more telling how many people are going out of their way recently to protest that God doesn't exist.

Except they are not going out of their way to say god doesn't exist. They are going out of their way to stop the religious from trampling the US constitution by exacting enacting religious laws and undermining science education for children.

FIFM

TheKillingJoke: Most smug atheist are probably a bunch of college kids who just took Philosophy 101.

As far as Philosophy 101 goes, what strikes me about the 'smug atheist' posts is the complete lack of understanding of fundamental questions in epistemology and ontology which should really cause them to temper their assertions. I guess the emphasis should be on '101.'

Diogenes The Cynic: I'm not knocking science. You just have to realize that without its active ingredient, it wouldn't work.

Yes you were. Science would still work without a precisely formulated philosophical framework. Philosophy can aide science, but to say it's greater than science is a knock.

Diogenes The Cynic: G-d is not a fictional character.
Plus, you glossed over the point I was making. People have a conception of the G-d they don't believe in. Thats weird. They want a G-d thats loving, and kind, but still reject him.

God will remain a fictional character until you can provide evidence of God's existence and specifically the God to which you are referring.

People have a conception of God because of Christianity's immense influence on Western culture. It would be almost impossible not to. I don't believe in Santa either, but I have a conception of him because we talk about Santa a lot in this nation.

on the road: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Since I can't see his rebuttals, I'll just establish my classical credentials by insulting him in Latin.

ora tibi infarctura verpulis putidis sit. Euge! nunc podex scorteus in saccum pansum imprimetur cinaedis!

Translation:

pray you, is rotten ones infarctura verpulis. Well done! Now LEATHER ass in the air sack impressed debauch!

[i2.photobucket.com image 320x320]

I got "purple monkey banana hammock SPOOGE, ass-ninja, orange soda TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLE!".

omeganuepsilon: cybernia: I hate when atheists say that a belief in a "supreme being" or whatever is illogical. Since ancient times humans have wondered what it all means, why are we here? So they came up with the idea of various versions of gods etc. I don't think it's illogical at all. I think atheists are the illogical ones.

Why do you think "why" is a necessary question?

Many times there is no why, it's just how. A sequence of natural events, each event leading to another event. Everything is connected, in a way. Not like ghosts and magic, but contiguous time.

Think of it as a really really really slow avalanche, the original shift caused by one specific snowflake melting. It may be chance that specific snowflake melted, but a snowflake was bound to melt, as the saying goes, it's a matter of course. Plenty of times there is no avalanche, conditions are not met to cause such a grand chain reaction, but just as plentiful are the avalanches.

Belief is not necessarily illogical. Working that belief in to answer questions that are yet unknown, is what is illogical. Thunder and lightning are not god, they've been re-created in the lab, by logic. An eclipse of the sun is not a holy event, it's a simple shadow.

Why is a necessary question because that's how most humans think. You say that "working that belief in to answer questions that are yet unknown, is what is illogical." I think it's very logical. But I think you examples make my point. Humans have the need for answers, so they create them. We may now know that thunder and lightning are not god, but in ancient times it was as good an explanation as any.

If the "why" wasn't such a big deal, why have many great minds throughout history tried to answer it?

180IQ: So ... how do we know what is and is not just? Oh, philosophy.

So ... how do we know what is and is not ethical? Oh, philosophy.

This isn't quite true.

We can use philosophy to create a consistent ethical system and that system can tell us what is and isn't ethical, but we still have to arbitrarily pick a system. Do you prefer utilitarianism or deontology?

180IQ: In the case of Phineas Gage (which I assume you're referring to) a change in the brain caused a change in behavior. You can call that a change in the mind if you want, but that's no longer an empirical statement.

Only if you implicitly assume the mind is something non physical. The mind could also be a convenient name for a range of physical processes in the brain.

cybernia: Boatmech: cybernia: I hate when atheists say that a belief in a "supreme being" or whatever is illogical. Since ancient times humans have wondered what it all means, why are we here? So they came up with the idea of various versions of gods etc. I don't think it's illogical at all. I think atheists are the illogical ones.
`
So atheists are illogical but believing in various versions of gods etc is logical?
`
I really hope that's a Troll but just in case - WTF are you talking about?

Since the beginning of time, humans have looked to find out the meaning of life, why we exist etc. So, it seems logical, that lacking any concrete answers, humans came up with various scenarios. The idea of deities dates back to the neolithic period. Most people in the world today believe in some sort of "god(s)."

`

Since the beginning of time, humans
have looked to find out the meaning of
life, why we exist etc.
Looked, noted, compared and quite often killed each other over minor and often nonsensical reasons.
`
So, it seems logical, that lacking any concrete answers, humans came up with
various scenarios.
`
Yes we did. Many diverse and conflicting scenarios. Religion probably was a necessary step in our evolution. So was controlling fire, but how often do you rub a couple of sticks together to cook a meal?
`
The idea of deities dates back to the neolithic period.
`
(Burials and Art work from the Mid Paleolithic, probably earlier but no firm evidence yet.)
`
Most people in the world today believe in some sort of "god(s)."
`
Believe in or simply give lip service to the concept in order not to be discriminated against in their daily lives?
`
As to your 'Most people' argument, it lacks any merit outside of Politics and the social sciences.
`Most people' believed that sacrificing your child or your enemy or your least favorite goat would ensure good fortune and not to do so courted disaster.
I am not one of those people.
Why should their fallacies and fairy tales hold sway over my life?

Boatmech: cybernia: Boatmech:
`
Yes we did. Many diverse and conflicting scenarios. Religion probably was a necessary step in our evolution. So was controlling fire, but how often do you rub a couple of sticks together to cook a meal?

But the discussion here is about a supreme being, not religion.
`

Most people in the world today believe in some sort of "god(s)."
`
Believe in or simply give lip service to the concept in order not to be discriminated against in their daily lives?

No, believe.
`
As to your 'Most people' argument, it lacks any merit outside of Politics and the social sciences.
`Most people' believed that sacrificing your child or your enemy or your least favorite goat would ensure good fortune and not to do so courted disaster.
I am not one of those people.
Why should their fallacies and fairy tales hold sway over my life?


They shouldn't and the majority of people don't have that agenda. And we're not talking about religion here, but the belief in the existence of a supreme being(s). Simple belief in a deity causes no one any harm. Pascal's wager: If you believe and you're wrong, no harm no foul. If you don't believe and "god" does exist, you might be in trouble. So, it's logical to believe, no?

cybernia: If the "why" wasn't such a big deal, why have many great minds throughout history tried to answer it?

Because the specific distinction between why and how is not always made. That is the way language works. General language versus technical language. These threads are a technical in a sense, specificity is necessary.

"Why" implies purpose, which implies design, which is not a necessary conclusion for the existence of a fact.. "Why is fire hot?" is not a valid question in a technical type of setting. In general language, the concept is "understood" and unspoken, a vagary of casual communication.
The proper question would be something like "How does fire come to generate heat?"

There's no need to answer "why" because it is not a valid question. Therefore an answer is not required, or rather, should be coupled with a distinction to clarify meaning. Carrying the casual why, over into the technical discussion, is equivocation, not necessarily with intent, but equivocation just the same.

If a child asks you a question, they may screw grammar and meaning all to hell. You begin the process by explaining the way that question should have been asked(once you've made certain of actual meaning), and then deliver an answer.

180IQ: Wait, are you setting up an philosophy vs. science thing?

No, you did, when you tried to make philosophy sound more relevant than it really is in modern life.

abb3w: omeganuepsilon: Maybe "one has to presume that an event has an explanation, that can be quantified by testing" or something along those lines.

Quantification by testing can result as a corollary, if you start with the presumption that experience (events) have patterns -- for a mathematically very broad definition of "pattern".

As I am to cybernia, you are to me. Your grasp of the terminology far outstrips my own. Though I see what you mean I think.
My point was just that using "assumption" in there made it unclean.

Sucks when work gets in the way of Farkin'

Boatmech: [t0.gstatic.com image 130x98]
Sucks when work gets in the way of Farkin'

At least you're working.
/sigh
//kidding, not really all that bad off yet
///got an interview next week

cybernia: Pascal's wager: If you believe and you're wrong, no harm no foul. If you don't believe and "god" does exist, you might be in trouble. So, it's logical to believe, no?

You realize that Pascal's wager is generally accepted as flawed logic, right?

A couple of points:
- do you really think you can deceive an omnipotent being with false faith?
- humans have invented 1000's of gods most of which are offended if you believe in a different one. Being neutral is probably safer (less offensive) than putting your faith into the wrong one.

Farking Canuck: - do you really think you can deceive an omnipotent being with false faith?

Faith isn't something that can be falsified, either you believe it or you don't.

Farking Canuck: Being neutral is probably safer (less offensive) than putting your faith into the wrong one.

Except there's no quarter given in most flavors of hellfire religion for being neutral. You're either right or wrong.

In pure game theory for a believer:

Choose the right one: Infinite win.
Choose the wrong one: Infinite loss.
Choose none: Still infinite loss.

It also seems kind of odd to believe in a given religion and then also believe in ANOTHER religion's hellfire account when making the choice.

Epicedion: I composed a rather detailed response, but then my internet imploded and ate it. Rather than trying to recreate it on my phone, I'll simply say this: philosophers just aren't very useful. The ones on fark are a combination of not very useful and self-aggrandizing twits.


I'm very sorry the internets ate your post. I hate that with the burning hatred of ten billion angry armadillos.

As far as philosophy and science goes, I thought the "Reason" part of the "Reason Rally" was supposed to be dedicated to the careful thought of the meaning of science and reality. Was it not? And isn't that just another way of saying "philosophy of science"?