Messages

1st of all if a model is useful or not has NOTHING to do with anything, and people get into science to know and understand how the natural world around them works.

So do you get a chuckle when a scientist draws a conclusion based on their prejudices instead of including the many ways the data obtained could be interpreted?

That's why everything is rigorously peer reviewed. There is no authority that judges work. Your peers have to be able to replicate your methods and experiments. If they can't be replicated your ideas don't become part of the scientific literature except maybe just as ideas to discuss

Um. Congress is peer reviewed too, by whole groups of voters. You can see where that got us.

"Peer review" is only as good as the peerage.

There is something wrong with the scientific method, and what is wrong is US. When we stop realizing that, science fails.

So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

Um, chopped. Like your apple.

[And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.]

Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.

Fingers are real too. Same as apples. Take a math class.

They work the same way, otherwise you couldn't have word-problems in math and math couldn't be applied to anything in the real world. And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

... is this too hard for you?

What on earth are you talking about? I'm saying if math doesn't apply to the real world than that statement wouldn't be valid.

Keep up with the conversation here.

Math doesn't apply to the real world. That was just a prejudice of Newton.

The real world doesn't function that way, we can only closely model it.

all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

But the a-theists, the one holding conventions in hotels at least, are often so anti-religious and a-faithist that they can't see the religious nature of their organized activities. It's clear as day to the theists. They look at it and say, "Oh, you've created a religion around science" or "a religion around the state."

Just as anything, ANY organization, that organizes itself around the concept of hierarchy will eventually start to look like a church. It's happened to the law, and it's happening to the stock market. Hierarchy, applied indifferently as the ONLY way to "get r' done," is the problem here.

We need to look beyond ancient ideas like hierarchy and authority, as one of many ways to approach administration of effort.

I don't like the concept of religion created around science. it's contradictory. I don't think atheists have created a religion around science, I think they've created a religion around an hypothesis (just as all good religions should be), which is just fine but it's not "science".

Not really. In order to gain cred in the University system, which was authoritarian and religious in nature, modern scientists had to abscond with the works of Sir Issac Newton, amongst others, as the authority by which they would found their new "natural science." The real reason we have "laws" in science is because of this authority grab, necessary to overcome the prejudices of the 18th C university system.

Now, some "scientists" are making up such "laws," or at the very least overstating their case, to combat the certainty of morons who believe the world is 6,000 years old because it says so in a mistranslated book. It's the same old battle against authority based "knowledge."

Before the modern science movement, science was called "natural philosophy."

At about the point where a scientist says, "I'm trying to know and/or discover" instead of, "I'm determining if this model is useful," you know you have a a religious scientist. Some of them never quite get past the "YOU KNOW NOTHING" phase.

So the whole thing started quite religiously, a religion based around mathematics, and could quite easily descend right back. All it takes is an inflexible set of minds in a position of authority.

So do you get a chuckle when a scientist draws a conclusion based on their prejudices instead of including the many ways the data obtained could be interpreted?

That's the nature of the problem. Authority is a bastard, and he's pissed off at anyone who thinks for themselves.

And because a pat answer always trumps a "who is to say?" he tends to win, in any circle.

The best thing about comics is the way you can play images and words off of each other.  You've just captioned metaphysical bullshit on top of generic semidetailed pictures of old dudes.

Also,

Fuck you. The Bible is the best book of all, and every single word in it is made up!

all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

But the a-theists, the one holding conventions in hotels at least, are often so anti-religious and a-faithist that they can't see the religious nature of their organized activities. It's clear as day to the theists. They look at it and say, "Oh, you've created a religion around science" or "a religion around the state."

Just as anything, ANY organization, that organizes itself around the concept of hierarchy will eventually start to look like a church. It's happened to the law, and it's happening to the stock market. Hierarchy, applied indifferently as the ONLY way to "get r' done," is the problem here.

We need to look beyond ancient ideas like hierarchy and authority, as one of many ways to approach administration of effort.

[how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God]

Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

But that's exactly the point. It's been translated multiple times, in multiple ways, with no clear indicator as to which one is the ACTUAL word of God.

Yup. Basically it's like playing the game "telephone." That's the Bible. Aramaic --> Latin --> vernacular languages, and stew with local politics such as King James'. Gutenburg was the original media pirate. There are so many "shout-outs" and courrier stamps in that thing, whichever version you use, that it needs to be treated as any other primary source. With utmost skepticism.

THIS THREAD IS HARD TO FOLLOW.

:discord:

I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

Sounds more like P.T. Barnum to me. 

I can't decide what's worse...the holier-than-thou religious types, or the smarmy-ass atheists.

Damn. That's a real poser. 

As an atheist, I think it's actually pretty fair to say that my disbelief in God/gods/higher powers is based on faith. If it was purely reason, you're probably right that I'd be an agnostic. However, I am no more capable of believing that it is possible there is a God, then religious people are capable of not believing in God, and I find it kind of offensive to be told that I'm only an atheist to piss off theists. I've tried multiple times to believe in some sort of higher power, but I just can't.

I call myself an atheist simply because that is the most accurate term for my beliefs.I have no interest in pissing off theists, and will even talk to evangelical Christians on the street if they're polite and I'm not doing anything at the time. I've also gone to a Sikh temple, and enjoyed myself.

In fact, I actually find theists' beliefs fascinating and like discussing it with them, which I hopefully do not do in a condescending way. I agree with what Ratatosk said, though, about finding people's personal experiences more interesting/valid than just them repeating what somebody else told them.

Yup. And that was exactly what the "good" atheists said to me. I just don't want to talk about fairy tales. Fairy tales are fun, but they're fairy tales. And they admitted it was an act of faith that they believed in "fairy tales" being fiction.

Believe me when I say that the term "agnostic" means functionally the same thing, and is less offensive to theists, in general.

If you're calling yourself an atheist, then the name itself says "I defy the existence of a god or gods." Even if semantically it literally means "I live without gods."

I think faith can actually be pretty significant influences upon all 3 of those.  I mean, at a certain point, aren't we all relying upon "faith" at some point or another?  Faith that gravity works 100% of the time.  Faith that the sun is always going to be there.  I mean, if you boil it down, I'm not sure you can find anyone who doesn't have some kind of "faith-crutch"

Not everyone. Some work off of probability. As in: "It is highly proabable that the laws of physics will not change, because, to my perception they have not done so for thousands of years."

Then again, perhaps tomorrow the whole gravity thing will be off, but we deem that as improbable.

Perhaps we'll enter a "dark world" and turn into our totem animals like some Nintendo game. How will you cope with that?

Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?

Belief is a crutch. Faith just "is." It's faith: Like faith that getting up in the morning is worth the trouble.

Putting aside "religion" which is a whole nother can of worms, the term "faith" is another one that is just too broad and open to personal interpretation that you can't really tar everyone with the same brush. As a general rule I will mercilessly mock people who profess to having "faith" in a god-based scenario but there are exceptions.

Well, I use the word faith to mean something you "just know." Like the fact that a bunch of Discordians will argue. That's something I have faith in.

I can also prove that Jesus Christ was a discordian, but first you have to let me kick you in the nuts as hard as I can.

Then, you too will see the light.

2x

also: reminded me of this and thought it was relevant:

you know country music is fucked up when hank williams, sr. is kicked out of the grand ol' opry

They also threw Johnny Cash out.

Basically, if the Grand Ole Opry approves, then it's watered down shit made for Baptists and pseudo-patriots.

I got livestock, i got livestock, i got liiiivveeeeestoock.

I love this rant.