If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Calgary Herald)   "Born-again atheists are as irritating as born-again religious persons"   (calgaryherald.com) divider line 660
    More: Interesting, born-again  
•       •       •

9320 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2012 at 10:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



660 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-11 06:33:39 PM  
abb3w:

I think I love you for ALL time.

;)
 
2012-05-11 07:23:33 PM  
cybernia :Boatmech:
`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 the ones with 'that agenda'? Should I bow my head and pray I don't offend them or their imaginary gods?
`
And we're not talking about
religion here,
but the belief in the existence of a supreme being(s).
`
(Ahm, check the Headline :)
`
Simple belief in a deity causes no one any harm.
`
A lack of belief causes no harm and encourages the logical examination of conflicting and irrational beliefs.
`
Pascal's wager:
(Without looking down thread I know someone is going to comment on PW so I'll
Just say : The Atheists 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.

`
Sorry, Nope, fear of gods is not a concern. ``
So, it's logical to believe, no?

`
Sigh, no child, fantasy and make believe are not real. Santa, God, and FSM are equally valid beliefs.
/i've got a noodley appendage myself so I'm partial to FSM
 
2012-05-11 07:33:32 PM  
omeganuepsilon
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

`
Yep, incuding today I've got less than 20 billable hours this week.
/more than last week - yea high cost of living!!
 
2012-05-11 07:43:33 PM  

GilRuiz1: 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"?
[farm8.staticflickr.com image 640x480]

From your link.
According to the official website, the aim of the Reason Rally was to "unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society."

There are many reasons for such things that are founded in "science". Reason and testing have proven repeatable actions that can result in a net gain towards one's goals. A lot of people insinuate that atheists shouldn't "care", and that's a BS argument. Everyone should care about society(as it's directly involved with their survival..), and want to find an optimal route to get through life. The problem lies in that there are several routes, banding together is an obvious one, and from that came the question of who gets to lead and why, well, the holy man of course(religion), or the guy who sounds(philosopher) smarter, and finally, the guy who's able to prove that he's smart, and prove his subsequent decisions are for the net gain of all.(science).

We're just coming to the age where it's possible for science to really take a hold, and be evident in all walks of life.

Public relation, education, and enhancing morale is not really all that philosophical or religious in nature. But doing them because of cold simple reason is a relatively new thing. Religion and philosophy want to own those things, and therefore see a threat, which they try to pass off as something ridiculous, or puff their own chests and say "no better than me".

The difference comes down to that for some it's a science, but it's in it's infancy, social science and psychology. It's pretty simple to show how murder is bad for society, but gay marriage? women's rights? How do you convince people that they're micromanaging on false precepts? How do you explain to the deluded that they are wrong in some of their limitations of others? They're not responsive to actual logic, so while a speech may sound fuzzy or fluffy, it is not, in essence. It's engineered to overcome a challenge.

The reason some people see it as philosophical is that there's no simple explanation. There is no single challenge, there are millions of little ones, individuals that all have their own motivations and reasons that need to be overcome to realize that goal. It's like convincing the natives that the beads they were given aren't all that valuable, or that the camera doesn't really steal their soul, that it's not magic at all, but doing so with their limited education, and limited resources on your part, language itself is flawed as are the human minds that employ it in every which way. What you've got is, indeed, fact, but overcoming the human vagaries and flaws that are their beliefs is a very tough struggle.

Philosophy plays at owning that middle ground(language and concepts), but really doesn't do very well with it, hasn't for the hundreds of years that it's been employed.. Until we get a language that's not corruptible by slang and drift over time, and expired poetic licences(people too busy with philosophy and being deep to renew), it will never be easy. We do have math, but that takes such an extensive education to master some of the more complex parts, it's unrealistic to use but for specialty purposes.
 
2012-05-11 07:46:14 PM  

Boatmech: omeganuepsilon
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
`
Yep, incuding today I've got less than 20 billable hours this week.
/more than last week - yea high cost of living!!


ouch, hope it picks up for you.
 
2012-05-11 07:47:07 PM  
abb3w
Boatmech: Religion probably was a necessary
step in our evolution.
Debatable; it may be more spandrel than step.
`

SJ Gould - biological spandrels - I'd have to reread way to much argue in that arena.
I will argue that Religion (probably) was vital to the organization/cooperation of groups of early Humans.
As to how Religion evolved - got a day or two to empty that particular can of worms? ;)
 
2012-05-11 07:57:31 PM  

omeganuepsilon: nvmac: You're not helping.

Am I supposed to be? Is there a rule I missed somewhere, on how one is supposed to treat a mental invalid?


Maybe by reasoning with them? You do have that power after all.

I suppose I'd have to agree with you; when you're inflexible, argument is a waste of effort.
 
2012-05-11 08:03:10 PM  

Boatmech: abb3w
Boatmech: Religion probably was a necessary
step in our evolution.
Debatable; it may be more spandrel than step.
`
SJ Gould - biological spandrels - I'd have to reread way to much argue in that arena.
I will argue that Religion (probably) was vital to the organization/cooperation of groups of early Humans.
As to how Religion evolved - got a day or two to empty that particular can of worms? ;)


Religion was inevitable.

How it started?

I hinted at it above.

You've got a group of primordial man, so to speak, living together. there's lightning, and one asks the other, "why that".

With intent or not, the answer is wrong if it's not "I don't know." Either he falsely believes, or willingly lies, he blames it on spirits of the dead. Why spirits, because it's a comfort to the living that the dead aren't gone, a common enough experience little white lie...

That man is now the goto guy with questions, and he has answers a plenty. Religion was one of the first non-violent means of controlling people.

That's how we get so many differing religions, even in modern times things are created almost from scratch(cults), or revived from the dead(wicca), or borrowed from others(mormons, I think).

We're just getting to the age where one can ask, "What is that?" and "I don't know, let's find out", and people work together to find out exactly.

All existing shamans know fear.

/I know I didn't flesh it out
//Like my avalanche, the emergence and evolution of religion is a matter of course.
///the original "of course", not today's neutered meaning "obvious" but rather, "inevitable".
 
2012-05-11 08:05:48 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: omeganuepsilon
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
`
.



/hope it works out - Good luck!
 
2012-05-11 08:08:42 PM  

omeganuepsilon: who gets to lead and why, well, the holy man of course(religion), or the guy who sounds(philosopher) smarter, and finally, the guy who's able to prove that he's smart, and prove his subsequent decisions are for the net gain of all.(science).



I hope you'll forgive me if you've covered this somewhere earlier in the thread, but I get the impression from your post that you see "philosophy" as yet another group of people who want to be on top, like religious leaders or politicians or businessmen. From what you wrote, you perceive numerous groups jockeying for leadership, with philosophy as simply one of many aspirants to the throne.

If that is so, then please consider the following.

All that philosophy is, really, is the careful and orderly thinking about things. There's no magic or mumbo-jumbo, it's simply the systematic consideration of issues and their meaning.

Careful thought about nature produced science. Science is built on a foundation of philosophy. Science used to be called "natural philosophy," and scientists used to be called "natural philosophers" until 1833.

It is philosophy that gave us reason and logic. It is philosophy of science that gave us Occam's Razor, empiricism, induction, and every other idea that is used in science. Whenever you say "science means this or that," you are using the framework of philosophy of science.

Philosophy is not the rival of science, it is its father.
 
2012-05-11 08:17:40 PM  

nvmac: omeganuepsilon: nvmac: You're not helping.

Am I supposed to be? Is there a rule I missed somewhere, on how one is supposed to treat a mental invalid?

Maybe by reasoning with them? You do have that power after all.

I suppose I'd have to agree with you; when you're inflexible, argument is a waste of effort.


yeah, when reason doesn't work, what else is there?
I've given up honest discourse because it's futile, and post to entertain myself now.

The key is to realize you won't change them, not the loudly faithful. they won't find a faith altering experience in a fark forum. The general reader though? Yeah, it's possible I scare off a couple from being rude, but the intelligent ones will see through merely fun drek and see the points there-in.

Maybe I present an idea or three that's of value to the general reader who is on the fence, or who is already on my side of it. I don't know if you've noticed, but the people on our side tend to soak up concepts from each other along the way, and there is a level of solidarity reached, so even in that there is a net gain.
 
2012-05-11 08:17:41 PM  

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon:
`
Philosophy is not the rival of science, it is its father.

`
Dad is getting pretty old these days, seems like he just sits around muttering about onions and clouds. ;=)
 
2012-05-11 08:31:24 PM  

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: who gets to lead and why, well, the holy man of course(religion), or the guy who sounds(philosopher) smarter, and finally, the guy who's able to prove that he's smart, and prove his subsequent decisions are for the net gain of all.(science).


I hope you'll forgive me if you've covered this somewhere earlier in the thread, but I get the impression from your post that you see "philosophy" as yet another group of people who want to be on top, like religious leaders or politicians or businessmen. From what you wrote, you perceive numerous groups jockeying for leadership, with philosophy as simply one of many aspirants to the throne.

If that is so, then please consider the following.

All that philosophy is, really, is the careful and orderly thinking about things. There's no magic or mumbo-jumbo, it's simply the systematic consideration of issues and their meaning.

Careful thought about nature produced science. Science is built on a foundation of philosophy. Science used to be called "natural philosophy," and scientists used to be called "natural philosophers" until 1833.

It is philosophy that gave us reason and logic. It is philosophy of science that gave us Occam's Razor, empiricism, induction, and every other idea that is used in science. Whenever you say "science means this or that," you are using the framework of philosophy of science.

Philosophy is not the rival of science, it is its father.


Granted for most of that. I was still in the mode of berating the guy who makes over the top claims as if talking about philosophy is a personal affront to the fanboi of the wrestler holding the championship belt, so I shoe-horned them in. /it's still real to him damnit

Philosophy is more of an uncle. The tendency to test and figure out an object was present as soon as intelligence was.(that and the following bit i mentioned above). Many animals alive today practice what we define as science, proceedural testing, rudimentary sure, but totally in absence of philosophy.

An influence to be sure, and it gave some cool gifts, maybe even named it, but not the ancestor. Was involved in learning and upbringing, to include manners, but was not responsible when it wrecked the car.

About the bold though.

Philosophy tends to shoot itself in the foot. I mentioned the value of beads. Personal value? Market value, etc. A "real" philosopher will pick things like that apart, go on for days on what "value" means, not it's definition but what it really means, what really is the concept, etc etc etc.

In a sense, it's similar to pedantry, in that it gets lost in the details. Context, to include the flow of the discussion, makes a great amount of supposed philosophy as irrelevant as the guy biatching about that stray apostrophe.

Sure, at times it's appropriate, but a decent amount of that time it's by circumstance and not intent.
 
2012-05-11 08:44:11 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Philosophy tends to shoot itself in the foot. I mentioned the value of beads. Personal value? Market value, etc. A "real" philosopher will pick things like that apart, go on for days on what "value" means, not it's definition but what it really means, what really is the concept, etc etc etc.

In a sense, it's similar to pedantry, in that it gets lost in the details. Context, to include the flow of the discussion, makes a great amount of supposed philosophy as irrelevant as the guy biatching about that stray apostrophe.



Doesn't science also examine details endlessly? Isn't science also involved in looking at ever-finer facts and minute details to the most exacting degree? Does science ever say "good enough, that's sufficiently close; we don't need to examine this anymore"?

If science does not do so, then why should philosophy? If scrupulous attention to ever-finer detail is a virtue in science, why is it a vice in philosophy?
 
2012-05-11 08:48:36 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Boatmech: abb3w
Boatmech: Religion probably was a necessary
step
in our evolution.
Debatable; it may be more spandrel than step.
`
SJ Gould - biological spandrels - I'd have to reread way to much argue in that arena.
I will argue that Religion (probably) was vital to the organization/cooperation of groups of early Humans.
As to how Religion evolved - got a day or two to empty that particular can of worms? ;)
`
1)Religion was inevitable.
`
2)How it started?
`
3)I hinted at it above.

`
1) No, not absolutely
2) Necessary step vs spandrel
(This thread is like checkers, #2) would be a chess match - brutal and bloody to the players, boring to observers)
`
You've got a group of primordial man, so to speak, living together. there's lightning, and one asks the other, "why that".

With intent or not, the answer is wrong if it's not "I don't know." Either he falsely believes, or willingly lies, he blames it on spirits of the dead. Why spirits, because it's a comfort to the living that the dead aren't gone, a common enough experience little white lie...

That man is now the goto guy with questions, and he has answers a plenty. Religion was one of the first non-violent means of controlling people.

That's how we get so many differing religions, even in modern times things are created almost from scratch(cults), or revived from the dead(wicca), or borrowed from others(mormons, I think).

We're just getting to the age where one can ask, "What is that?" and "I don't know, let's find out", and people work together to find out exactly.

All existing shamans know fear.

/I know I didn't flesh it out
//Like my avalanche, the emergence and evolution of religion is a matter of course.
///the original "of course", not today's neutered meaning "obvious" but rather, "inevitable".

`
3) Tangent line of thought. Also, I haven't followed that strand of this thread so I'm reluctant to wade thru 600+ comments.
 
2012-05-11 08:49:14 PM  
Anyone else ever notice the lack of the bewb in these relig-oulous threads? It's depressing.
 
2012-05-11 08:53:36 PM  

omeganuepsilon: The tendency to test and figure out an object was present as soon as intelligence was.(that and the following bit i mentioned above). Many animals alive today practice what we define as science, proceedural testing, rudimentary sure, but totally in absence of philosophy.


You will not be surprised to learn that there is a philosophical term for that: "naive empiricism."
 
2012-05-11 09:05:18 PM  

Tennozan: Anyone else ever notice the lack of the bewb in these relig-oulous threads? It's depressing.


t3.gstatic.com

t2.gstatic.com
`
Just had a 2-3(?) day BIE thread
`
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-05-11 10:24:04 PM  

TsukasaK: 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.


Ummm ... that is exactly my point.

Pascal's wager is pretending to believe (i.e. going through the motions) because you are trying to beat the odds. This fake faith should not be enough for a god ... otherwise that god is a pathetic sap that can be fooled by parlor tricks.

If you have real faith then Pascal's wager does not come into play.

Therefore Pascal's wager cannot be used as a motivation to believe in a god as it is not a source of real faith.
 
2012-05-11 10:49:58 PM  

Boatmech: Just had a 2-3(?) day BIE thread


Still going on(somewhat). 1413 posts
http://www.fark.com/comments/7093908/Female-Breasts-Are-Bigger-Than-E v er-then-headline-goes-on-about-something-else&new=1#new

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: Philosophy tends to shoot itself in the foot. I mentioned the value of beads. Personal value? Market value, etc. A "real" philosopher will pick things like that apart, go on for days on what "value" means, not it's definition but what it really means, what really is the concept, etc etc etc.

In a sense, it's similar to pedantry, in that it gets lost in the details. Context, to include the flow of the discussion, makes a great amount of supposed philosophy as irrelevant as the guy biatching about that stray apostrophe.

Doesn't science also examine details endlessly? Isn't science also involved in looking at ever-finer facts and minute details to the most exacting degree? Does science ever say "good enough, that's sufficiently close; we don't need to examine this anymore"?

If science does not do so, then why should philosophy? If scrupulous attention to ever-finer detail is a virtue in science, why is it a vice in philosophy?


The key difference is that science keeps it relevant. When discussing the molecular composition of the chair, how the word chair came about, was it named because it was an object or was it a name and then an object, and a discussion on whether it's actually real or not, or if it has an intrinsic goodness, that's all irrelevant. It is a senseless diversion.

But thanks for demonstrating perfectly the pointless tangent problem I was talking about by dwelling on the innane.

GilRuiz1: You will not be surprised to learn that there is a philosophical term for that: "naive empiricism."


You will not be surprised that it's also an unnecessary philosophical OCD-like categorization of part of all scientific study. Designated by philosophers for philosophers. And that's the reason it's a very minor blurb on wiki. It's useless. On top of that, the state which I described is but one spot on a sliding scale, part of a range, nil being the bottom with a theoretical limit less than infinity(biological limitations).

It's like naming your neighbors kids for them(or sperm really if you want to name all the spots on the scale), despite your neighbor's actual wishes, and then attempting to sign them up for life insurance. It's meddling.

Sure, call social services in cases of abuse, but if you've got nothing, stay out of their lives. It's ok to watch and listen, but to pre-emptively butt your nose in and make judgement calls is, haughty and rude. You may have something if your neighbors expressly ask for help and embrace your involvement, and some do, but a great number, have no use for you, and do very well for themselves.

I take that back about the uncle.
It's the meddling grandparent who likes to spoil the kids. Sure sometimes the gift is nice, even helpful. Many times it's got repercussions that are negative, and sometimes that's the actual purpose of the gift, to annoy the actual parents.

From wiki's:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
...
(On the philosophy of science)
Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.

The computer I'm posting this with makes it valid, and so do a million other things we all see every day. That kind of philosophy is redundant by severe magnitudes to simply serving ordinary observation.

Science, though un-named at the time, is older than philosophy. Science is a direct result of the intelligent mind, the more intelligent the mind, the more challenging things it can overcome. A monkey understands what it's doing, it just can't codify it like a philosopher, needs to for his own peace of mind. A scientist, can do this, but has no need to codify what he's doing beyond science in meticulous and poetic detail, rather, he will break down the process in a relevant and useful way.. Well, until a philosopher tries to butt in and dictate what terms the scientist should think in.

What is infuriating about philosophy, it tends to list things such as empiricism, as if there are more ways to come to a conclusion, or even that one is sullied because they're merely empirical.

From that wiki:
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

I ask, quite seriously, what other kind of information is there? Magic? Illusion? Dreams are real and we are just dreams?
Challenge? Science is just getting to explain such things as emotions, dreams, and how the organic computer works with these things, so, no using them the same way the religious attempt to. ie " you can't explain that! therefore GOD philosophy"

Philosophy, much like fark threads, is convoluted debate, only more convoluted by a large order.
If you needed proof of a great majority of it being useless, there it is, you're taking part in it right now!
 
2012-05-11 11:22:30 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method ... The computer I'm posting this with makes it valid, and so do a million other things we all see every day.


Does it? See, you are making a philosophical claim, but can you prove it? Rigorously. Scientifically. Prove.

Something we hear often is that we believe nothing without proof. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But here we discover that scientists assume some ideas, and away they go. Assume? Assume??? As in... take unproven ideas for granted? Really? We're building science on unproven assumptions?

Philosophers of science are not trying to poke holes in the foundations of science. Philosophers of science are trying to discover solid, rigorous, proofs for the foundations. They're raising questions to find ways to answer them. We should be grateful they're making an effort to find solid ground to base science on.


omeganuepsilon: From that wiki:
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

I ask, quite seriously, what other kind of information is there? Magic? Illusion? Dreams are real and we are just dreams?


Reason.

Reason is also the opposite of empiricism, as it turns out that reason and empiricism are incompatible.



omeganuepsilon: If you needed proof of a great majority of it being useless, there it is, you're taking part in it right now!


The fact that you did not know that reason is an alternate source of knowledge, and that it is incompatible with empiricism, should be proof enough of the extraordinary usefulness of philosophy, and how crucial it is to be informed in this area.
 
2012-05-11 11:46:36 PM  

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method ... The computer I'm posting this with makes it valid, and so do a million other things we all see every day.

Does it? See, you are making a philosophical claim, but can you prove it? Rigorously. Scientifically. Prove.

Something we hear often is that we believe nothing without proof. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But here we discover that scientists assume some ideas, and away they go. Assume? Assume??? As in... take unproven ideas for granted? Really? We're building science on unproven assumptions?

Philosophers of science are not trying to poke holes in the foundations of science. Philosophers of science are trying to discover solid, rigorous, proofs for the foundations. They're raising questions to find ways to answer them. We should be grateful they're making an effort to find solid ground to base science on.


omeganuepsilon: From that wiki:
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

I ask, quite seriously, what other kind of information is there? Magic? Illusion? Dreams are real and we are just dreams?

Reason.

Reason is also the opposite of empiricism, as it turns out that reason and empiricism are incompatible.



omeganuepsilon: If you needed proof of a great majority of it being useless, there it is, you're taking part in it right now!

The fact that you did not know that reason is an alternate source of knowledge, and that it is incompatible with empiricism, should be proof enough of the extraordinary usefulness of philosophy, and how crucial it is to be informed in this area.

`
Meh, philosophy talks about it (reason),
Science(tm) gets shiat done IRL(empiricism[sp?])!
 
2012-05-11 11:51:21 PM  

Boatmech: Meh, philosophy talks about it (reason),
Science(tm) gets shiat done IRL(empiricism[sp?])!



It's looking more and more like the Reason Rally was poorly named.
 
2012-05-12 12:03:51 AM  
Jesus was an extraterrestrial.
 
2012-05-12 12:05:33 AM  

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method ... The computer I'm posting this with makes it valid, and so do a million other things we all see every day.

Does it? See, you are making a philosophical claim, but can you prove it? Rigorously. Scientifically. Prove.


No, I'm making a scientific claim, and you're asking for philosophical proof. Geting deep and poetic over what proof really is.
Unless you Believe these words could materialize spontaneously, or be put there by a omnipotent being, that's all the proof you need to operate. All else is irrelevant. I am posting words to you, by using science. Now if it takes oodles of philosophy for you to accept that as reality, you're already a lost cause.

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: If you needed proof of a great majority of it being useless, there it is, you're taking part in it right now!

The fact that you did not know that reason is an alternate source of knowledge, and that it is incompatible with empiricism, should be proof enough of the extraordinary usefulness of philosophy, and how crucial it is to be informed in this area.


Fact, I asked.
Assumption. that I did not know the further assumption, that it's a real thing.

1. it's Rationalism, even in your citation, don't call it reason
2. please provide some (hopefully meaningful)examples of what information is obtainable via your link, using only Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone
3. prove your work, as in describe how it's pure intuition.

Hint: You're getting so dangerously close to saying/paraphrasing "god did it." Do you even see that?

4."reason", or logic, is not incompatible with empiricism(and why the distinction is necessary), it's integral to it.
 
2012-05-12 12:15:58 AM  

GilRuiz1: Boatmech: Meh, philosophy talks about it (reason),
Science(tm) gets shiat done IRL(empiricism[sp?])!


It's looking more and more like the Reason Rally was poorly named.


`
Difficulty - until I followed your link I'd not heard of this.
20,000 people? Damn.
`
It's looking more and more like the Reason Rally was poorly named.

`
Care to clarify that?
 
2012-05-12 12:16:59 AM  

omeganuepsilon: 4."reason", or logic, is not incompatible with empiricism(and why the distinction is necessary), it's integral to it.


Clarification. People "reason" all sorts of things, but logic is a little more foolproof, even if not mathematically perfect, part of that reason.

Of course, reason is not limited to people, but people are centered in this debate.
 
2012-05-12 12:19:29 AM  

Boatmech: Care to clarify that?


He can't, he's "reasoned" himself into a corner with bad logic. Remember, "reason" led people to believe in the Rapture. Best part of that whole deal was helium filled sex dolls released into the open air.
 
2012-05-12 12:20:17 AM  

Boatmech: SJ Gould - biological spandrels - I'd have to reread way to much argue in that arena.


Not really. Essentially, I'm using the term to refer to something that's the result of the interaction of other traits, rather than a primary beneficial trait itself. As long as it doesn't have costs higher than the marginal benefits directly from the traits, it tends to stick around.

I'm thinking of the work of Pascal Boyer, with his book "Religion Explained". He doesn't even use the word "spandrel" himself; just seems to be invoking the underlying concept.

Boatmech: I will argue that Religion (probably) was vital to the organization/cooperation of groups of early Humans.


Eh. It was at least a cheap mechanism. Basic extended family concept might have still worked; tribes tended to have "chiefs" as well as "priests".

Boatmech: As to how Religion evolved - got a day or two to empty that particular can of worms? ;)


As I said, I find Boyer's description moderately plausible, at least for earliest forms. It can then get more elaborate via ordinary evolutionary mechanisms.

If you can address the evolution in terms of Cannon's "Six Ways" framework, such as how each might have arisen, I'd be fascinated.

GilRuiz1: All that philosophy is, really, is the careful and orderly thinking about things.


Well, "careful and orderly" is arguably just a more respectable sub-branch....

GilRuiz1: Philosophy is not the rival of science, it is its father.


Grandparent, I'd argue.
Also, getting to be senile.

Boatmech: Dad is getting pretty old these days, seems like he just sits around muttering about onions and clouds. ;=)


...and apparently I'm not the only one.
Though there's at least some semi-respectable work still being done, here and there.

Tennozan: Anyone else ever notice the lack of the bewb in these relig-oulous threads? It's depressing.


The cult of Salma Hayek seems to have faded here in the last couple years.

GilRuiz1: You will not be surprised to learn that there is a philosophical term for that: "naive empiricism."


Though it's also a Cog Psych term, I think. Or at least, would seem related to Naïve physics.

Farking Canuck: Therefore Pascal's wager cannot be used as a motivation to believe in a god as it is not a source of real faith.


Depends how good your brain's OS is on buffer overflow prevention. If it's weak, you can use it to bootstrap in the theology, then overwrite the memory and forget how you started believing in the first place.
 
2012-05-12 12:29:12 AM  

GilRuiz1: Philosophers of science are not trying to poke holes in the foundations of science. Philosophers of science are trying to discover solid, rigorous, proofs for the foundations. They're raising questions to find ways to answer them.


Depends on the philosopher of science.

GilRuiz1: Reason is also the opposite of empiricism, as it turns out that reason and empiricism are incompatible.


Only in so far as they're made into straw-man forms.

omeganuepsilon: 4."reason", or logic, is not incompatible with empiricism(and why the distinction is necessary), it's integral to it.


...kinda. I'd say it's more "prior" than "integral". Empirical reasoning (as science used the term) presupposes abstract language and relations to reason in and with, that may be mapped to experience.

YMMV.
 
2012-05-12 12:38:55 AM  

abb3w: GilRuiz1: All that philosophy is, really, is the careful and orderly thinking about things.

Well, "careful and orderly" is arguably just a more respectable sub-branch....


snerk

abb3w: Tennozan: Anyone else ever notice the lack of the bewb in these relig-oulous threads? It's depressing.

The cult of Salma Hayek seems to have faded here in the last couple years.


Nah, it's alive, just quiet. She, preggers, was one of the final pics in the thread(unless my eyes betray me) i referenced above(can't recall if I linked it). She is a token entry in just about every boob thread.(there's an email notification for them when they happen to pop up, if anyone is interested)
_______________

On a side note, I occasionally lend praise to your posts, as you may or may not recall(I'm wordy but still rather insignificant). I know you're quite educated, so it gives me extra pleasure when I arrive to more or less the same places you do all through my own very lazy Google Diploma backed up with a Minor in Wiki from Armchair U.

Not bragging, just saying thanks for posting. On occasion, these types of threads get to be quite the obstacle, and people like you lend some credence to the vocal minority.

/if i'd gone to a real U, it'd have been 12 years of psych, and years or decades of things like social sciences and cultural studies(yep, if I'd had the money I'd be the hipster douche old guy permanent and professional student)
//redneck(in denial) geek otherwise, highschool and military(electronics),
 
2012-05-12 12:47:45 AM  

abb3w: omeganuepsilon: 4."reason", or logic, is not incompatible with empiricism(and why the distinction is necessary), it's integral to it.

...kinda. I'd say it's more "prior" than "integral". Empirical reasoning (as science used the term) presupposes abstract language and relations to reason in and with, that may be mapped to experience.

YMMV.


I did clarify, but I'll take it another step.

The more reliable parts of reason, which is short for all forms of conscious human thought processes, are integral to successful empiricism, which is another way of saying scientific progress.

Every route has it's dead ends for varying reasons, some just have more than others by nature of their convoluted ways.
 
2012-05-12 01:53:35 AM  
Thx Boatmech, maybe there is a *AGOYC

/ *almighty god of your choice
 
2012-05-12 02:04:09 AM  

Tennozan: Thx Boatmech, maybe there is a *AGOYC

/ *almighty god of your choice


Patent Pending
t3.gstatic.com Boobs
t2.gstatic.com Birdboobies

abb3w you are giving my browser epilepsy.
Please do not do that!
(I gotta shorten the hell out of this, sorry)

abb3w: Boatmech: SJ Gould - biological spandrels - I'd have to reread way to much argue in that arena.

Not really. Essentially, I'm using the term to refer to something that's the result of the interaction of other traits, rather than a primary beneficial trait itself. As long as it doesn't have costs higher than the marginal benefits directly from the traits, it tends to stick around.

`
Yes,
`
I'm thinking of the work of Pascal Boyer, with his book "Religion Explained". He doesn't even use the word "spandrel" himself; just seems to be invoking the underlying concept.
`
I'm thinking it's 1am and I have no idea who Pascal Boyeris. Spandrels, as you use it, I am aware of, not saying I agree - but it is history. ie already happened. As you say, it is the result not the intention.
`
Boatmech: I will argue that Religion (probably) was vital to the organization/cooperation of groups of early Humans.
`
Eh. It was at least a cheap mechanism. Basic extended family concept might have still worked; tribes tended to have "chiefs" as well as "priests".
`

Tribes tended/tend to be blood/marriage bond dependent. Larger groups require an over reaching loyalty or coercion.
`
Boatmech: As to how Religion evolved - got a day or two to empty that particular can of worms? ;)
`
As I said, I find Boyer's description moderately plausible, at least for earliest forms. It can then get more elaborate via ordinary evolutionary mechanisms.
~yeah, about that~
If you can address the evolution in terms of Cannon's "Six Ways" framework, such as how each might have arisen, I'd be fascinated.
`

t3.gstatic.comso would i.
 
2012-05-12 02:14:49 AM  
32 more posts for #666!
 
2012-05-12 03:45:28 AM  

Ow My Balls: 32 more posts for #666!


Just doing my part.
 
2012-05-12 03:57:30 AM  

scalpod: Ow My Balls: 32 more posts for #666!

Just doing my part.


We'll get there, cheers!

I'm wondering if there's any genetic tendency or some other biological reason to be a believer without proof, or if it's all environment/learned.

Same kind of dispositions that cause people to distrust those that are dislike them(race/deformities), as well as how gays claim "born that way". It's been shown that trans- people have biological reasons for a brain/body mismatching, so it's not out of the realm of possibility, but is it the only way?

It also stands to some reason that environment can be factors in both of the above as well. Being the victim of a crime can cause/fuel racism, and as we've seen in a grand variety of ways, child abuse can cause all sorts of "deviant" behavior. (I use deviant in quotes, because at the moment, I can't think of a more all encompassing term, no offense meant to bullies, people with attachement issues, gays, or whatever other non "normal" condition you can think of that is known or speculated on).
 
2012-05-12 08:49:05 AM  

Ow My Balls: 32 more posts for #666!


Did you miss the news ... 616 is the new magic devil number. Turns out they've been sacrificing babies born with 666 tattoos behind their ears for nothing.

Link
 
2012-05-12 11:04:24 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Does it? See, you are making a philosophical claim, but can you prove it? Rigorously. Scientifically. Prove.

No, I'm making a scientific claim, and you're asking for philosophical proof. Geting deep and poetic over what proof really is.
Unless you Believe these words could materialize spontaneously, or be put there by a omnipotent being, that's all the proof you need to operate. All else is irrelevant. I am posting words to you, by using science. Now if it takes oodles of philosophy for you to accept that as reality, you're already a lost cause.


You know, all of our long discussion on science and philosophy and such is kind of giving me the impression that you view philosophy of science in the same way that dogmatic religious people view heretics. I get the impression that it irritates you that someone dares question science, and it irritates you that you can't just shut them up because you can't really answer their questions. You try to shoo them away by disparaging their questions, and justify yourself by lots of hand-waving and begging the question. This is not what I expect from people who champion SCIENCE and PROOF and "extraordinary claims requre extraordinary evidence."

Whatever happened to accepting things based on proof? Why does it bother you that "heretics" question your "dogma"?


Boatmech: GilRuiz1: Boatmech: Meh, philosophy talks about it (reason),
Science(tm) gets shiat done IRL(empiricism[sp?])!

It's looking more and more like the Reason Rally was poorly named.

`
Care to clarify that?


Really?


abb3w: GilRuiz1: Philosophy is not the rival of science, it is its father.

Grandparent, I'd argue.
Also, getting to be senile.


Really? I thought it was your thing. Whatever happened to:
i224.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-12 11:39:46 AM  

Farking Canuck: Pascal's wager is pretending to believe (i.e. going through the motions) because you are trying to beat the odds.


No it isn't. Pascal's wager is to believe or not to believe. There's no deception specified.
 
2012-05-12 11:50:00 AM  

TsukasaK: Farking Canuck: Pascal's wager is pretending to believe (i.e. going through the motions) because you are trying to beat the odds.

No it isn't. Pascal's wager is to believe or not to believe. There's no deception specified.


Let me get a bit more specific.

Pascal's wager is used as a argument to try and convince non-believer's that, since not-believing gets you nothing in the alleged afterlife while believing might get you something, you should go with believing. Were I to agree with that logic I would have to manufacture some fake belief ... because I still have no real belief.

I cannot suddenly ignore logic and reason because maybe it might help me in some alleged after-life. If I do it is artificial, a sham, an attempt to fake out an alleged god.

You have to already be a believer for Pascal's wager to mean anything and if you are already a believer then Pascal's wager does not apply to you.
 
2012-05-12 12:23:49 PM  

Farking Canuck: Were I to agree with that logic I would have to manufacture some fake belief ... because I still have no real belief.


But if you were to agree with that logic, i.e. that believing in a deity is the way to go, it wouldn't be artificial.

If it WAS artificial, then it wasn't belief anyways, and you haven't fulfilled the conditions of the wager. (And never agreed with the premise in the first place, making you a liar twice, first for deceiving the human, and second for possibly attempting to deceive a theoretical god)

Basically, Pascal's wager is basically meaningless unless you believe in some kind of afterlife already (even absent deities of any kind). If you DO believe in an afterlife but not a god, Pascal might be able to sway you.

On that note, belief in an afterlife is a bit of a tricky thing because it's completely impossible to prove. Existence of some kind of deity might be able to be proven one day by some kind of discrepancy in reality itself, but I don't forsee that ever happening with an afterlife. Really all we have to go on there are sketchy "ghost stories" and spiritual experiences (even from people who don't believe in spirits or afterlives) from people who've had near death experiences.
 
2012-05-12 02:05:46 PM  

GilRuiz1: science in the same way that dogmatic religious people view heretics.....Whatever happened to accepting things based on proof? Why does it bother you that "heretics" question your "dogma"?


Yeah, call science a religion and then run off refusing to answer the nice chain of questions I had going.

What, couldn't come up with an example of pure rationalism information?

How is asking for some sort of proof all of a sudden un-scientific and more like a religion? You kinda glossed that over in your red herring.
 
2012-05-12 02:19:09 PM  

omeganuepsilon: couldn't come up with an example of pure rationalism information?


I was making an aside, but if you'd like an example, sure, let me give you one.

Imagine a perfect circle. Picture it in your mind. A mathematically perfect circle, perfectly round, perfectly shaped, flawless.

Do you have it in your mind? Can you picture it in your head? Ok?

You have now gone beyond the realm of the physical and the empirical into the realm of the rational. What you have pictured in your head does not exist in the physical world. There is no such thing as a perfect circle in the real world. You can search the universe from one end to the other, and you will never discover a physical object that is "a perfect circle." The thing you created in your head was simply an idea of something that does not exist in the empirical real world.

Math, thought experiments, and a billion other things that can only be imagined, but do not really physically exist, belong to the realm of rationalism.


omeganuepsilon: call science a religion ... How is asking for some sort of proof all of a sudden un-scientific and more like a religion?


What? Who called science a religion? What are you talking about?

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I did not call science a religion. I said that your threatened attitude reminded me of the same attitude that religious dogmatists show when their dogma is questioned.

I did not comment about science, I commented about you.
 
2012-05-12 02:30:17 PM  

GilRuiz1: What you have pictured in your head does not exist in the physical world.


What is a circle? remember, in this pure rationalism, there is no experience, no input from the senses, only reason.

The whole point of me asking you questions, is that you're making something from some supposed inherent knowledge. That's the entire theory behind rationalism. Not extrapolating from empiricism.

GilRuiz1: I commented about you.


And i'm asking for proof, how is that more like religion than science?

/you're really not very good at this whole communication with words thing

GilRuiz1: Go back and re-read what I wrote.


I did. You didn't mention that you're using your Jump to Conclusions mat so much that it is breaking down, but it is very well what you are saying.
 
2012-05-12 02:35:31 PM  

omeganuepsilon: What is a circle?


Are you really asking me this?
 
2012-05-12 02:37:35 PM  

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: What is a circle?

Are you really asking me this?


Yes, read it again, but in context this time. How do you know what a circle is? You didn't rationalize it from nothing did you?
 
2012-05-12 02:42:57 PM  

omeganuepsilon: GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: What is a circle?

Are you really asking me this?

Yes, read it again, but in context this time. How do you know what a circle is? You didn't rationalize it from nothing did you?



Ok, I'll play along.

A circle is a two-dimensional shape where every point along its circumference is perfectly equidistant from the center. It is described by a line with no thickness -neither height nor width - that is perfectly smooth down to the infinite level. It can be any size; infinitely smaller than the smallest quark, and infinitely larger than the entire size of the universe. It does not have mass, and it is not made of atoms or any materials.
 
2012-05-12 02:51:47 PM  

GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: GilRuiz1: omeganuepsilon: What is a circle?

Are you really asking me this?

Yes, read it again, but in context this time. How do you know what a circle is? You didn't rationalize it from nothing did you?


Ok, I'll play along.

A circle is a two-dimensional shape where every point along its circumference is perfectly equidistant from the center. It is described by a line with no thickness -neither height nor width - that is perfectly smooth down to the infinite level. It can be any size; infinitely smaller than the smallest quark, and infinitely larger than the entire size of the universe. It does not have mass, and it is not made of atoms or any materials.


Day late and a dollar short.
You keep ignoring the questions.

omeganuepsilon: How do you know what a circle is? You didn't rationalize it from nothing did you?

 
2012-05-12 03:06:26 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Day late and a dollar short.
You keep ignoring the questions.

omeganuepsilon: How do you know what a circle is? You didn't rationalize it from nothing did you?



Are you are asking whether or not round things exist in the physical world?

I tried to answer what you understood you to be asking, but if I missed your meaning, would you mind re-stating again?
 
Displayed 50 of 660 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report