|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Aug 18, 2017 17:50:08 GMT
Science is the best tool humans have devised to give us reliable information about how the world actually works, and it is ever evolving and correcting. If we can't collect and examine something that objectively exists using science, then we can't speak in an informed way about it, and anything one person would claim about it would have no more validity than what anyone else would claim. All religions are doing is filling in the unknown with unscientific theories, and then holding onto them in the face of any evidence that would otherwise erode them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 18, 2017 18:01:07 GMT
tpfkar I couldn't disagree more with "everything is subjective." The text I'm typing on the screen at the moment isn't at all subjective, for example. And "objective" has nothing to do with agreeing with other people. That's a shocker. What you're typing on the screen is only text because we've all (via our "system") agreed that it is. All "objective" that can be is a shared subjective. No other source. You're conflating the concept as a concept, objective speech acts, and pixels on the screen. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 18, 2017 18:04:43 GMT
tpfkar That's a shocker. What you're typing on the screen is only text because we've all (via our "system") agreed that it is. All "objective" that can be is a shared subjective. No other source. You're conflating the concept as a concept, objective speech acts, and pixels on the screen. I know you probably think so, but what I'm actually doing is trying to help you pull out of one of your semantic wankery spirals and get back to the thread point. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 18, 2017 18:12:12 GMT
You're conflating the concept as a concept, objective speech acts, and pixels on the screen. I know you probably think so, but what I'm actually doing is trying to help you pull out of one of your semantic wankery spirals and get back to the thread point. I'm attempting to teach you something. Whether the horse will drink is another matter. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 18, 2017 18:14:29 GMT
tpfkar I know you probably think so, but what I'm actually doing is trying to help you pull out of one of your semantic wankery spirals and get back to the thread point. I'm attempting to teach you something. Whether the horse will drink is another matter. Not much I'm interested in learning from the idiot savant minus the savant.  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 18, 2017 18:17:53 GMT
tpfkar I'm attempting to teach you something. Whether the horse will drink is another matter. Not much I'm interested in learning from the idiot savant minus the savant. I certainly agree that you're not much interested in learning. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 18, 2017 18:21:32 GMT
tpfkar Not much I'm interested in learning from the idiot savant minus the savant. I certainly agree that you're not much interested in learning. Primo posting you do! A great tool  for learning what not to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 18, 2017 18:23:47 GMT
I certainly agree that you're not much interested in learning. Primo posting you do! A great tool for learning what not to do. You should be offering to pay me to respond to you. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 18, 2017 18:26:08 GMT
tpfkar Primo posting you do! A great tool for learning what not to do. You should be offering to pay me to respond to you. I really should! You and ErJen both! |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 18, 2017 18:27:58 GMT
tpfkar You should be offering to pay me to respond to you. I really should! You and ErJen both! Right. And I know you're bored, but I'm not going to spend my whole day entertaining you. So I'll respond to whatever you write next at a later time unless you do want to pay me. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 18, 2017 18:30:15 GMT
tpfkar I really should! You and ErJen both! Right. And I know you're bored, but I'm not going to spend my whole day entertaining you. So I'll respond to whatever you write next at a later time unless you do want to pay me.  Are you going to tag-team with your Irish fellow traveller? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 18, 2017 22:00:33 GMT
My two cents. There is no objective truth available to humans. Any human who interacts with the world has a subjective view of it. And any human view is not only subjective, but incomplete. Therefore, in order for humans to make sense of the world, they make models. Maybe for some humans, models including deities or other supernatural intelligences make sense. Like gadreel said, to him a universe with an intelligence behind him is a model that he is comfortable with (gadreel, feel free to correct me if this presentation is inaccurate). To me, it doesn't. I tend to be materialist and not believe in supernatural entities. The naturalistic explanations are enough for me. But I don't claim that I know everything about the universe, or that I have found an objective answer. In fact, I believe the religious-philosophical-spiritual outlook of each human on the universe is a bit like choosing a map projection for a world map. There are plenty of them, all of them with advantages or disadvantages. If you want a map that facilitates navigation, choose Mercator. If you want a map that keeps the size and shapes of the landmasses, choose Dymaxion or Authagraph. If you want to just check longitudes and latitudes, choose a cylindrical projection. And so on. And all the map projections have one thing in common: They are incomplete. It is not possible to make an accurate 2D model of a 3D object. Maybe for questions in life, philosophies and religions are like map projections. If you want an outlook where you want to believe that there is higher meaning, or some sort of higher purpose independent of humans, choose a theistic religion. If you believe that life is simply an opportunity to have fun and enjoy it, but has no external purpose, choose an atheistic religion. And no philosophy and religion can claim to be accurate; unless objective truths would be available to humans. The problem arises when some people try to convince others that their model is the best, or even the only possible one. As long as it happens only on message boards, there's no serious problem. Unfortunately, the people in New York, London, Madrid, Berlin, Brussels, Nice, and now Barcelona, know that this is not the case. Speaking of map projections: I don't know if I agree with everything in this comic. But I like it.  |
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Aug 18, 2017 22:08:36 GMT
My two cents. There is no objective truth available to humans. Any human who interacts with the world has a subjective view of it. And any human view is not only subjective, but incomplete. Therefore, in order for humans to make sense of the world, they make models. Maybe for some humans, models including deities or other supernatural intelligences make sense. Like gadreel said, to him a universe with an intelligence behind him is a model that he is comfortable with (gadreel, feel free to correct me if this presentation is inaccurate). To me, it doesn't. I tend to be materialist and not believe in supernatural entities. The naturalistic explanations are enough for me. But I don't claim that I know everything about the universe, or that I have found an objective answer. In fact, I believe the religious-philosophical-spiritual outlook of each human on the universe is a bit like choosing a map projection for a world map. There are plenty of them, all of them with advantages or disadvantages. If you want a map that facilitates navigation, choose Mercator. If you want a map that keeps the size and shapes of the landmasses, choose Dymaxion or Authagraph. If you want to just check longitudes and latitudes, choose a cylindrical projection. And so on. And all the map projections have one thing in common: They are incomplete. It is not possible to make an accurate 2D model of a 3D object. Maybe for questions in life, philosophies and religions are like map projections. If you want an outlook where you want to believe that there is higher meaning, or some sort of higher purpose independent of humans, choose a theistic religion. If you believe that life is simply an opportunity to have fun and enjoy it, but has no external purpose, choose an atheistic religion. And no philosophy and religion can claim to be accurate; unless objective truths would be available to humans. The problem arises when some people try to convince others that their model is the best, or even the only possible one. As long as it happens only on message boards, there's no serious problem. Unfortunately, the people in New York, London, Madrid, Berlin, Brussels, Nice, and now Barcelona, know that this is not the case. Speaking of map projections: I don't know if I agree with everything in this comic. But I like it. Nice analogy, but it presumes a map is needed. What if you have no desire to believe at all, thus the presentation of any map is just silly noise? And you have to deal with people arguing their maps, fighting over them, pushing them into governments and courts, leaving maps on your door or wanting to talk about maps, distrusting or killing people without maps, ruining the earth because the maps here are temporary and the real world comes after, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 18, 2017 22:51:47 GMT
Nice analogy, but it presumes a map is needed. What if you have no desire to believe at all, thus the presentation of any map is just silly noise? And you have to deal with people arguing their maps, fighting over them, pushing them into governments and courts, leaving maps on your door or wanting to talk about maps, distrusting or killing people without maps, ruining the earth because the maps here are temporary and the real world comes after, etc. My point exactly. I am fine with any map/religion anyone might choose, as long as they don't try to push it as the only choice. And not choosing a map is a choice as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 18, 2017 22:55:58 GMT
If you believe there is no god, you also have lack a belief in one. That is exactly what I tried to explain to you makes no sense. If you neither believe there is, nor belief there is not, a god then you truly "lack" belief. No, that may not include believing there is no god. Believing there is no god is a belief indeed, not a lack of one. Many people have the opinion that their belief there is no god is somehow a "default" stance or requires no effort or otherwise is a privileged position. It is not a privileged position. It is not a default position. It is a conscious decision to reject evidence. It requires that effort. It is not the status quo. Just as proof and disproof have the same standards, belief and disbelief (in this sense) have the same character. Your incapacity to recognize that you belief something is disturbing and does nothing to assure sensible people you are capable of logic, much less clear and precise terms. |
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Aug 18, 2017 23:04:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 18, 2017 23:58:05 GMT
If you believe there is no god, you also have lack a belief in one. That is exactly what I tried to explain to you makes no sense. If you neither believe there is, nor belief there is not, a god then you truly "lack" belief. No, that may not include believing there is no god. Believing there is no god is a belief indeed, not a lack of one. Many people have the opinion that their belief there is no god is somehow a "default" stance or requires no effort or otherwise is a privileged position. It is not a privileged position. It is not a default position. It is a conscious decision to reject evidence. It requires that effort. It is not the status quo. Just as proof and disproof have the same standards, belief and disbelief (in this sense) have the same character. Your incapacity to recognize that you belief something is disturbing and does nothing to assure sensible people you are capable of logic, much less clear and precise terms. You realize none of this has anything to do with the thread topic right?
Are you aware of anything convincing about a god, because I'm not going to sit around debating a definition with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 19, 2017 0:00:34 GMT
<chart concerning gnosticism> I think your efforts to keep track of things are admirable. It shows an openness to various opinions. That is important to maintaining a peaceful world. Sadly, it is obvious you will never be successful keeping track of much though. Certain knowledge of a brick of concrete is possible and something large numbers of people can readily agree upon. God is an abstract concept. Not only is there usually no concrete image, Judaism even has a rule against concrete images. That means that when Mark claims to "know" God, it is usually not something others can see as they can see a brick of concrete. While it makes sense to keep track of who "knows" where the brick of concrete is, it does not make sense to attempt to keep track of who "knows" such highly abstract ideas as the unseen forces in nature and society which people in the modern world mean when they speak about a "god." Even the most successful religious leaders; the Dalai Lama, the various Imams, pastors of megachurches, the Pope, none of them, familiar as they likely are with the divine, attempt to describe themselves as "gnostics" because they understand that what they may indeed know is to you only what they think they know and they respect your position. Yet foolish children playing on the internet think you can keep track who are "gnostics"!?!? Don't be so silly. Of course you cannot. It was a nice try though. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 19, 2017 0:03:03 GMT
My point exactly. I am fine with any map/religion anyone might choose, as long as they don't try to push it as the only choice. And not choosing a map is a choice as well. My point is that any religious choice is an irrational choice, so why are we fine with irrational choices? Whether it's flat earthers or holocaust deniers or tarot card readers, they should be called irrational shouldn't they? I mean if they seriously believe that stuff I mean, not if they're just having fun with the ideas.
The only rational position to take regarding a god, is atheism/agnosticism. Withholding belief until there is sufficient evidence to justify believing a claim that a god exists. So far there is no such justification. So no, I'm not fine with people jumping to the conclusion that there is one, and trying to organize society around their conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 19, 2017 0:05:27 GMT
My point is that any religious choice is an irrational choice, so why are we fine with irrational choices? Why not? |
|
