Dear Uncle Roger,
I've been debating theists and atheists alike on Yahoo News. The annoying part is that I'm starting to sound like an atheist. Now, I know that I'm going through my own spiritual doubts, but they only apply to me, my immortal soul and the grace of God. But dear God, man. How is it that our fellow theists have totally missed out on the idea that our holy mission, aside to fuck with everyone, is to actually figure this shit out? What happened to the likes of Newton, who, while dead wrong on matters of chemistry, was dead right on physics because he wanted to know what God was up to? When did we become dumb, and when did the infidels steal our academic thunder? It's offensive unto our LORD(or LADY) that a bunch of smarmy asshats would take up our sacred cause.
I may be a humble Nephew, but I am also a Doktor, and this heresy on both sides makes my firebrand itch. You are a Holy Man, and I a mere monk. How can we make this itchy brand a beacon for all to see? How can we bring the Shut The Fuck Up to the masses? How can we bring the flag burning hippies, and the gun toting preppers, to the same BBQ? What must we sacrifice, by fire, unto our LORD (or LADY)?
Genuinely curious, because it is grilling season now, even here in New England.
Your favorite Nephew,
Twid
An example:
Quote from: TwidI don't know why I got two thumbs down. Rabbits don't chew cud. They don't. If God made them, why does he think they do? Did he forget how he designed their digestive tracts? That's something that we can directly observe and go, "Uh hey, Boss? You sure you know what you're talking about here? Did you lose the blueprints on the rabbits or something?"
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 22, 2014, 05:42:02 AM
An example:
Quote from: TwidI don't know why I got two thumbs down. Rabbits don't chew cud. They don't. If God made them, why does he think they do? Did he forget how he designed their digestive tracts? That's something that we can directly observe and go, "Uh hey, Boss? You sure you know what you're talking about here? Did you lose the blueprints on the rabbits or something?"
Coprophagy maybe has some sort of divine equivalence :wink: - cecotropes as cud substitutes?
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 22, 2014, 05:13:00 AM
Dear Uncle Roger,
I've been debating theists and atheists alike on Yahoo News. The annoying part is that I'm starting to sound like an atheist. Now, I know that I'm going through my own spiritual doubts, but they only apply to me, my immortal soul and the grace of God. But dear God, man. How is it that our fellow theists have totally missed out on the idea that our holy mission, aside to fuck with everyone, is to actually figure this shit out?
Because they think the mission is to take the dogma as is, and crap all over everyone else's parade with it.
This is why the doctrine of SHUT UP is so important to doing Good Work. When you see someone say - with a straight face - that the bible is literally true and contains no contradictions, what you are witnessing is a person desperate for a DIVINE INTERVENTION bestowing some SHUT UP upon their poor benighted souls.
This may involve horrible beatings; the work of God is rarely pretty.
You may see some rabid asshole with a bible in his hand, screeching about the Gays. This man also needs SHUT UP. If anyone thinks this is un-American or fascist or whatever, then allow me to refer you to our complaints department. Pretty sure his name is Matthew Shepard.
When you see anyone claiming that God's word trumps proof, you are watching someone shit on 1000 years of rationalism AND 2000 years of theology. When you see anyone claim that they have proven God's existence by one means or another, you are seeing a man without faith. And that's fine, in both cases. But when they decide that their truth is more appropriate in classrooms than, say, biology, then it's time for SMITING and screaming and running around and SHUT UP.
The more we learn, the less water primitive superstitious ignorance holds. Newton and Einstein and whatnot were fine because they stuck to belief in a non-defined abstraction of god, a creator. This is not mutually exclusive with science since there is no data before the big bang, it may very well have been some giant invisible dude just suddenly popping into existence and deciding he was bored.
Belief in religious texts, however, is almost completely incompatible with scientific method, since the vast majority of most of them is demonstrably gobshite. Rabbits being merely the tip of the iceberg.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:19:23 PM
The more we learn, the less water primitive superstitious ignorance holds. Newton and Einstein and whatnot were fine because they stuck to belief in a non-defined abstraction of god, a creator. This is not mutually exclusive with science since there is no data before the big bang, it may very well have been some giant invisible dude just suddenly popping into existence and deciding he was bored.
Belief in religious texts, however, is almost completely incompatible with scientific method, since the vast majority of most of them is demonstrably gobshite. Rabbits being merely the tip of the iceberg.
You kinda need to re-read Newton's biography. He was a fanatic.
I knew he was pretty big into alchemy. Guess I figured hermeticism and christianity were mutually exclusive :horrormirth:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:24:55 PM
I knew he was pretty big into alchemy. Guess I figured hermeticism and christianity were mutually exclusive :horrormirth:
He also predicted based on his interpretation of the bible that the world would end in 2060. He was a pretty devout Christian.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2014, 02:13:48 PM
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 22, 2014, 05:13:00 AM
Dear Uncle Roger,
I've been debating theists and atheists alike on Yahoo News. The annoying part is that I'm starting to sound like an atheist. Now, I know that I'm going through my own spiritual doubts, but they only apply to me, my immortal soul and the grace of God. But dear God, man. How is it that our fellow theists have totally missed out on the idea that our holy mission, aside to fuck with everyone, is to actually figure this shit out?
Because they think the mission is to take the dogma as is, and crap all over everyone else's parade with it.
This is why the doctrine of SHUT UP is so important to doing Good Work. When you see someone say - with a straight face - that the bible is literally true and contains no contradictions, what you are witnessing is a person desperate for a DIVINE INTERVENTION bestowing some SHUT UP upon their poor benighted souls.
This may involve horrible beatings; the work of God is rarely pretty.
You may see some rabid asshole with a bible in his hand, screeching about the Gays. This man also needs SHUT UP. If anyone thinks this is un-American or fascist or whatever, then allow me to refer you to our complaints department. Pretty sure his name is Matthew Shepard.
When you see anyone claiming that God's word trumps proof, you are watching someone shit on 1000 years of rationalism AND 2000 years of theology. When you see anyone claim that they have proven God's existence by one means or another, you are seeing a man without faith. And that's fine, in both cases. But when they decide that their truth is more appropriate in classrooms than, say, biology, then it's time for SMITING and screaming and running around and SHUT UP.
This summer I will bring the gift of shut up to those in need of it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:19:23 PM
The more we learn, the less water primitive superstitious ignorance holds. Newton and Einstein and whatnot were fine because they stuck to belief in a non-defined abstraction of god, a creator. This is not mutually exclusive with science since there is no data before the big bang, it may very well have been some giant invisible dude just suddenly popping into existence and deciding he was bored.
Belief in religious texts, however, is almost completely incompatible with scientific method, since the vast majority of most of them is demonstrably gobshite. Rabbits being merely the tip of the iceberg.
You might consider looking into the early history of scientific inquiry.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 22, 2014, 03:59:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:24:55 PM
I knew he was pretty big into alchemy. Guess I figured hermeticism and christianity were mutually exclusive :horrormirth:
He also predicted based on his interpretation of the bible that the world would end in 2060. He was a pretty devout Christian.
Well that will be an interesting end of the world tale in a few decades. There will be a hilarious cult for that one.
Anyone want to get in super early and start it?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:19:23 PM
The more we learn, the less water primitive superstitious ignorance holds.
Clearly, you have never visited the American Southwest.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:19:23 PM
The more we learn, the less water primitive superstitious ignorance holds. Newton and Einstein and whatnot were fine because they stuck to belief in a non-defined abstraction of god, a creator. This is not mutually exclusive with science since there is no data before the big bang, it may very well have been some giant invisible dude just suddenly popping into existence and deciding he was bored.
Belief in religious texts, however, is almost completely incompatible with scientific method, since the vast majority of most of them is demonstrably gobshite. Rabbits being merely the tip of the iceberg.
You might consider looking into the early history of scientific inquiry.
You mean back when there were only four elements or when the earth was flat, not long after the theory was put forward that some white guy with a beard walked on water? You taking about that early? Or a bit later when they'd worked out there were a few more boxes on the periodic table, or the earth was actually a ball of rock, hurtling round the sun or that the surface tension of water was nowhere near strong enough to support a free standing Caucasian?
Somewhere in between?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:19:23 PM
The more we learn, the less water primitive superstitious ignorance holds. Newton and Einstein and whatnot were fine because they stuck to belief in a non-defined abstraction of god, a creator. This is not mutually exclusive with science since there is no data before the big bang, it may very well have been some giant invisible dude just suddenly popping into existence and deciding he was bored.
Belief in religious texts, however, is almost completely incompatible with scientific method, since the vast majority of most of them is demonstrably gobshite. Rabbits being merely the tip of the iceberg.
You might consider looking into the early history of scientific inquiry.
You mean back when there were only four elements or when the earth was flat, not long after the theory was put forward that some white guy with a beard walked on water? You taking about that early? Or a bit later when they'd worked out there were a few more boxes on the periodic table, or the earth was actually a ball of rock, hurtling round the sun or that the surface tension of water was nowhere near strong enough to support a free standing Caucasian?
Somewhere in between?
What's really funny is that the number one patron of scientists from 1400-1700 AD was the Catholic Church.
Followed closely by nobles co-funding the Lutheran church in the 1600s.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2014, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 02:19:23 PM
The more we learn, the less water primitive superstitious ignorance holds. Newton and Einstein and whatnot were fine because they stuck to belief in a non-defined abstraction of god, a creator. This is not mutually exclusive with science since there is no data before the big bang, it may very well have been some giant invisible dude just suddenly popping into existence and deciding he was bored.
Belief in religious texts, however, is almost completely incompatible with scientific method, since the vast majority of most of them is demonstrably gobshite. Rabbits being merely the tip of the iceberg.
You might consider looking into the early history of scientific inquiry.
You mean back when there were only four elements or when the earth was flat, not long after the theory was put forward that some white guy with a beard walked on water? You taking about that early? Or a bit later when they'd worked out there were a few more boxes on the periodic table, or the earth was actually a ball of rock, hurtling round the sun or that the surface tension of water was nowhere near strong enough to support a free standing Caucasian?
Somewhere in between?
What's really funny is that the number one patron of scientists from 1400-1700 AD was the Catholic Church.
Followed closely by nobles co-funding the Lutheran church in the 1600s.
Yes, this is what I was talking about. The pursuit of scientific inquiry was considered one of the most God-glorifying pursuits, because what more noble subject is there for man than to study the Creation of God?
I'm not really sure what happened after that, or why for some reason most Born-Agains hate science.
What happened was science started disproving large chunks of biblical myth?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 10:18:07 PM
What happened was science started disproving large chunks of biblical myth?
Nope. The Church has always been fairly flexible on that point. Catholics and Lutherans aren't literalists, like Fundies are. And, there is little "Biblical myth" that can't work around scientific knowledge.
Galileo may disagree a touch there.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 10:15:36 PM
Yes, this is what I was talking about. The pursuit of scientific inquiry was considered one of the most God-glorifying pursuits, because what more noble subject is there for man than to study the Creation of God?
I'm not really sure what happened after that, or why for some reason most Born-Agains hate science.
For people like Twid and I, it still is the ultimate holy work. Figuring out God's rulebook, so to speak.
And there was always an anti-science crowd. In the time period we're talking about, it was mostly in England.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2014, 10:29:03 PM
Galileo may disagree a touch there.
Galileo was on trial because he was an asshole. Because he was an asshole, 2 mathematicians that could provide the proofs he needed would not help him (he had spent the previous year calling them ignoramuses). Because he could not PROVE his case, his ideas contrary to current scriptural interpretation were legally heresy.
But he wasn't in a dungeon or anything. He just had to stay in his house. There was never any question of burning him. He was considered a national treasure during his own life, and the whole trial business was to convince him to stop, you know, being a complete asshole to his colleagues.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 10:18:07 PM
What happened was science started disproving large chunks of biblical myth?
Heresy means "contradicting interpretation without being able to prove your case". The Catholic church has always amended interpretation in the face of evidence. In October/November of 1998, for example, they acknowledged evolution as the mechanism by which man (and everything else) arrived where we are.
The Lutherans and the Calvinists (at least back in the day) were exactly the same way. Hell, half of the founders were rabid presbyterians from some Northern bit of the British Isles, but they didn't see the need to involve their faith with science or politics.
That's all fairly recent.
Asshole or not, he was right. Credit where it's due. I'd rather get the right answer from an asshole than bullshit from a smiling group.
I'm not saying that the Catholic Church hasn't historically been a cabal of greedy, power-hungry control freaks. I'm just saying that they have historically been very pro-science, along with most Protestant churches, as well as most of Islam and Judaica. The idea that they are all anti-science is relatively new, and seems largely to be fueled by the vehement extremist screechings of fundamentalist neophobes.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2014, 10:48:39 PM
Asshole or not, he was right. Credit where it's due. I'd rather get the right answer from an asshole than bullshit from a smiling group.
Thing is, he was such an asshole that he was actually slowing things down.
And he was unable to prove he was right at the time. You gonna take an asshole at his word, just because he's an asshole?
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 10:54:35 PM
I'm not saying that the Catholic Church hasn't historically been a cabal of greedy, power-hungry control freaks. I'm just saying that they have historically been very pro-science, along with most Protestant churches, as well as most of Islam and Judaica. The idea that they are all anti-science is relatively new, and seems largely to be fueled by the vehement extremist screechings of fundamentalist neophobes.
Yep. Most often Baptists, and I think that's primarily due to the manner and locations in which the Baptist church grew in the USA.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2014, 10:48:39 PM
Asshole or not, he was right. Credit where it's due. I'd rather get the right answer from an asshole than bullshit from a smiling group.
If you reread that, he was unable to provide proofs to support his hypotheses because he pissed off his COLLEAGUES IN SCIENCE. So, are you going to point the finger at scientists for being anti-science? That's like calling Nature (the esteemed journal) "anti-science" for refusing to publish a paper because it offers no evidence in support of the conclusion.
The right answer is no answer at all without supporting evidence.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2014, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2014, 10:48:39 PM
Asshole or not, he was right. Credit where it's due. I'd rather get the right answer from an asshole than bullshit from a smiling group.
Thing is, he was such an asshole that he was actually slowing things down.
And he was unable to prove he was right at the time. You gonna take an asshole at his word, just because he's an asshole?
Well this is interesting. I would say that this would depend on the level of potential consequence. If the asshole is just slowing down something mundane, that's one thing. This asshole was asking a society to revise it's doctrine. And we all know how well people do when asked to reconsider their beliefs.
So is this then, a systematic problem? At the time, research was reliant on church funds and obligated to them accordingly. Now, much less so. However the systems have changed somewhat so dissenting views are heard without house arrest(mostly) so that's progress. I wouldn't be shocked to learn however that the majority of current religious funded research supports that particular belief structure. That could probably apply to any research with a motivating set of beliefs funding it too.
(above typed pre-nigel post)
Fair points. In the modern era though, I would assume fringe ideas would get circulated in lesser publications until someone does a "discrediting X" piece. I would have assumed most get dismissed or torn apart but those with substance eventually filter through for due consideration. I guess I'm also hoping modern science is a lot more tolerant of assholes.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2014, 11:13:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2014, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 22, 2014, 10:48:39 PM
Asshole or not, he was right. Credit where it's due. I'd rather get the right answer from an asshole than bullshit from a smiling group.
Thing is, he was such an asshole that he was actually slowing things down.
And he was unable to prove he was right at the time. You gonna take an asshole at his word, just because he's an asshole?
Well this is interesting. I would say that this would depend on the level of potential consequence. If the asshole is just slowing down something mundane, that's one thing. This asshole was asking a society to revise it's doctrine. And we all know how well people do when asked to reconsider their beliefs.
So is this then, a systematic problem? At the time, research was reliant on church funds and obligated to them accordingly. Now, much less so. However the systems have changed somewhat so dissenting views are heard without house arrest(mostly) so that's progress. I wouldn't be shocked to learn however that the majority of current religious funded research supports that particular belief structure. That could probably apply to any research with a motivating set of beliefs funding it too.
(above typed pre-nigel post)
Fair points. In the modern era though, I would assume fringe ideas would get circulated in lesser publications until someone does a "discrediting X" piece. I would have assumed most get dismissed or torn apart but those with substance eventually filter through for due consideration. I guess I'm also hoping modern science is a lot more tolerant of assholes.
Thing is, nobody really had any heartburn with Galileo's ideas. In fact, the church was trying very hard to wiggle out of the Earth-centric model, which was by then obviously silly, and Galileo's work contributed directly to that.
But he was an asshole, and made very powerful enemies. And those enemies used politics to slap him down.
Under any other pope of that time period, he'd have been in much more serious trouble, but not killed and not because of his ideas...But because he was a pain in the ass.
Religion often seems to get the blame for things done with political motivation. I guess it's a handy scapegoat, but scapegoating it doesn't match up with reality, and doesn't help us avoid politically-motivated bullshit.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 11:22:52 PM
Religion often seems to get the blame for things done with political motivation. I guess it's a handy scapegoat, but scapegoating it doesn't match up with reality, and doesn't help us avoid politically-motivated bullshit.
And part of the problem there is that within Europe, religion and politics were different sides of the same coin. We can randomly dismiss the thoughts of our ancestors with "Well, they didn't know better." But they did. The Greeks knew the Earth was spherical, and they knew pretty accurately how large that sphere was. The whole idea that it was broadly assumed that the Earth is flat is kinda ridiculous. All you need to prove that it is round is the sun, the moon and an eclipse.
And the Catholic Church gets a bad rap. Hell, the Anglican Church gets a bad rap. But I will point out that I was raised in the Catholic elementary school system, and we learned the shit out of science. Talk to any Catholic about their contribution to science and they will say one thing immediately: "LaMaitre. Priest. Scientist. Big Bang Theory." Religious folk are proud as shit when they make a discovery. And that's the whole damn point. If you're going to believe in a god or gods, fucking figure out what he/she/it is up to. The Catholics, despite their, admittedly very dark history, at least got that shit right, as did a weird English occultist named Isaac Newton.
I should also probably point out that when I was in Catholic school the nuns told us, explicitly, that it was perfectly acceptable for us to believe in evolution, and that acceptance of it was sanctioned by Rome. Why wouldn't it be? The idea was there several centuries before Darwin. Darwin gets special mention because he figured out how evolution works. He didn't propose that. That was also an ancient, and of course, Greek, concept.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 10:26:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 10:18:07 PM
What happened was science started disproving large chunks of biblical myth?
Nope. The Church has always been fairly flexible on that point. Catholics and Lutherans aren't literalists, like Fundies are. And, there is little "Biblical myth" that can't work around scientific knowledge.
So proving people can't walk on water, come back from the dead or bring people back to life. Or how about pretty much every single other word printed? At which point do they hold their hands up and say "Ok, yeah, it's pretty much all bullshit" cos I'm patiently waiting.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 06:12:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 10:26:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2014, 10:18:07 PM
What happened was science started disproving large chunks of biblical myth?
Nope. The Church has always been fairly flexible on that point. Catholics and Lutherans aren't literalists, like Fundies are. And, there is little "Biblical myth" that can't work around scientific knowledge.
So proving people can't walk on water, come back from the dead or bring people back to life. Or how about pretty much every single other word printed? At which point do they hold their hands up and say "Ok, yeah, it's pretty much all bullshit" cos I'm patiently waiting.
Could be some dude here or there wanted to jump on the Jesus bandwagon and get his say by making the story a little bit more interesting. I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. The faithful who are receptive to science will reinterpret scripture to fit the science. It might be a hell of a logical pretzel but they will do it, and it will be consistent and will define the impossible as metaphor. Christians are pretty smart in general. In general, of course. They actually do want to understand how the whole thing works.
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.
Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.
Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.
Me too. I still can't bring myself to completely accept it's not, given that the two things seem diametrically opposed. On one side you've got rigorous testing and review and on the other side you have guys living inside whales and building boats big enough to house the entire animal kingdom and when it's proven, scientifically, to be horseshit, they "change the interpretation" How does that even work? The 6000 year old universe still revolves around the earth, it's just that terms like "6000 years old" and "revolves around" have to be reinterpreted?
I am unable to see this as anything other than really really dumb and really really unscientific.
This is why I was thinking it may be a systemic problem. Previously, science was obligated to work around religious realities. Now, religion has to work around scientific realities, if it wishes to remain relevant.
But why? Why does it want to "remain relevant"? If it's essentially just the cave-painting version of the Harry Potter series, do we really need it? Was it ever relevant? Why do people still have to dress up in silly costumes and mumble in cold buildings? Not that I have a problem with this, it's more the demand that I take them seriously and respect their beliefs. I've tried, fuck knows I've tried but I can't bring myself to do it. How do I respect something so retarded?
People whom I respect saying they believe it goes some way to addressing this but I'm leaning more towards those people have fallen, hook line and sinker for a shaggy dog story than the idea that they are possessed of some insightful wisdom that I'm not.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 10:21:29 AM
But why? Why does it want to "remain relevant"?(1) If it's essentially just the cave-painting version of the Harry Potter series, do we really need it? Was it ever relevant?(2) Why do people still have to dress up in silly costumes and mumble in cold buildings? Not that I have a problem with this, it's more the demand that I take them seriously and respect their beliefs. I've tried, fuck knows I've tried but I can't bring myself to do it. How do I respect something so retarded?
People whom I respect saying they believe it goes some way to addressing this but I'm leaning more towards those people have fallen, hook line and sinker for a shaggy dog story than the idea that they are possessed of some insightful wisdom that I'm not.
1 - Ask any person or organisation with power and control to surrender said power and control. Watch the inevitable carnage.
2 - I'm starting to think that there was a point where it was highly relevant. Funding scientific advancements is certainly relevant and would have been at the time. The problem is when these advancements must fit a pre-determined doctrine.
On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.
The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.
On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"
Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 12:54:45 PM
On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.
The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.
On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"
Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.
Maybe this is just a minor point but maybe not. That should probably read
"Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll
Magnify god"; like Roger said the other day proof has never been part of the equation. Just a thought.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 08:00:48 AM
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
Why does what other people believe matter so much to you? Isn't there some point where you go "oh, well, it isn't any of my business unless it affects me"?
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.
Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.
I've recommended it before, but I recommend Sapolsky's take on why humans believe in spiritual things. If you're genuinely interested, that is.
Quote from: MMIX on April 23, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 12:54:45 PM
On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.
The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.
On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"
Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.
Maybe this is just a minor point but maybe not. That should probably read
"Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll Magnify god"; like Roger said the other day proof has never been part of the equation. Just a thought.
That is precisely what I meant, MMIX, thank you.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 12:54:45 PM
On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.
The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.
On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"
Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.
Your understanding of history is a little off. Just saying.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 09:37:41 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.
Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.
Me too. I still can't bring myself to completely accept it's not, given that the two things seem diametrically opposed. On one side you've got rigorous testing and review and on the other side you have guys living inside whales and building boats big enough to house the entire animal kingdom and when it's proven, scientifically, to be horseshit, they "change the interpretation" How does that even work? The 6000 year old universe still revolves around the earth, it's just that terms like "6000 years old" and "revolves around" have to be reinterpreted?
I am unable to see this as anything other than really really dumb and really really unscientific.
As any person with scientific training knows, religion can no more be scientific or unscientific than science can be religious or unreligious. Science does not deal with religion. Period. Dogma can be pro-or-anti-science, but in itself religion and science are two circles that do not intersect. Science does not deal with ideas that cannot be tested.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 03:17:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 12:54:45 PM
On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.
The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.
On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"
Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.
Your understanding of history is a little off. Just saying.
It's a complete, and incorrect, revision.
My thought on it is, if you want to form a strong opinion on the historical relationship between religion and science, and if you want to form a strong opinion on humanity and religion, first research it. Then you will have the accurate knowledge base with which to form an opinion.
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 03:16:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.
Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.
I've recommended it before, but I recommend Sapolsky's take on why humans believe in spiritual things. If you're genuinely interested, that is.
I must have missed the recommendation. I'm still working through Sapolsky whenever I get spare time and that sounds like it well worth a look at. Book or lecture?
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 08:00:48 AM
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
Why does what other people believe matter so much to you? Isn't there some point where you go "oh, well, it isn't any of my business unless it affects me"?
In general terms, I suppose it doesn't. In very specific, political, shapers-of-public-policy terms, it
very much does.
For example, Todd Akin: Denies Evolutionary theory, man-made climate change, and Biology (he's the "legitimate rape" guy), and he served on the Congressional Comittee of Science, Space, and Technology. And he's not the only loon on that committee. There's also Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell, and it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
It's when
their anti-rational and non-reality-based ideas and beliefs affect
me, is when it starts mattering to me.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 23, 2014, 03:47:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 08:00:48 AM
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
Why does what other people believe matter so much to you? Isn't there some point where you go "oh, well, it isn't any of my business unless it affects me"?
In general terms, I suppose it doesn't. In very specific, political, shapers-of-public-policy terms, it very much does.
For example, Todd Akin: Denies Evolutionary theory, man-made climate change, and Biology (he's the "legitimate rape" guy), and he served on the Congressional Comittee of Science, Space, and Technology. And he's not the only loon on that committee. There's also Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell, and it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
It's when their anti-rational and non-reality-based ideas and beliefs affect me, is when it starts mattering to me.
Sort of half this and half because it really, genuinely disturbs me. I was bombarded with this crap as a child, a lot of people went out their way to convince a young, highly impressionable child that the bible (ie - the holy miracle penned directly by the hand of gandalf the omniscient) was a real thing.
It messed up my head. It was like giant puddle of mental AIDS that took absolutely fucking ages to get rid of. It wasn't just me this was done to. It was all the kids at my school and all the adults that had been there before me. It was most of a race. A fucking race of homo sapiens! I live in a country that still describes itself as "Christian" Not "Buffy Fans" or "Trekkies" but some kind of throwback ancient forerunner where fandom requires you to actually believe in the vampires.
It's fucking pathetic. It annoys the shit out of me.
Well, I'll just carry my pathetic ass out of this thread.
Sorry, Twid.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 10:21:29 AM
People whom I respect saying they believe it goes some way to addressing this but I'm leaning more towards those people have fallen, hook line and sinker for a shaggy dog story than the idea that they are possessed of some insightful wisdom that I'm not.
I don't think you're pathetic. You're no difference from (probably) the majority of humanity. I think it's a pathetic state of affairs
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 05:04:51 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 10:21:29 AM
People whom I respect saying they believe it goes some way to addressing this but I'm leaning more towards those people have fallen, hook line and sinker for a shaggy dog story than the idea that they are possessed of some insightful wisdom that I'm not.
I don't think you're pathetic. You're no difference from (probably) the majority of humanity. I think it's a pathetic state of affairs
I think you'll find that the vast majority of theists are more like Twid and I; you only hear the loud and obnoxious ones.
You and Twid have never tried to convince me. The majority of theists I encountered growing up did. They did so with the sanction of the government and the education system. I also feel the need to make a distinction between people who believe in some form of creator or deity or intelligence behind the universe and the ones that piss me off, the one's who adhere to the bible explanation. No one ever told me to explore the possibility of there being some kind of intelligent creator, no. They told me his name, a bunch of stuff he did and said and a bunch of crap about some white guy who walked on water.
And they told me it like it was some kind of fact. :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
You and Twid have never tried to convince me.
That's because we're looking forward to puking cheap beer out of heaven, down on to your filthy sinner heathen head as you fry in hell.
We're kinda dicks, that way.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 03:34:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 03:16:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.
Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.
I've recommended it before, but I recommend Sapolsky's take on why humans believe in spiritual things. If you're genuinely interested, that is.
I must have missed the recommendation. I'm still working through Sapolsky whenever I get spare time and that sounds like it well worth a look at. Book or lecture?
this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI
(As well as others I assume?)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 08:00:48 AM
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
I thought the whole point of Jesus walking on water was that, yeah, it's patently impossible...
but he did it anyway. Isn't that sort of the point of a miracle?
Quote from: Hoopla on April 23, 2014, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 08:00:48 AM
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
I thought the whole point of Jesus walking on water was that, yeah, it's patently impossible... but he did it anyway. Isn't that sort of the point of a miracle?
As I have said, a deity that has to operate within the rule set of the universe isn't a deity, just a powerful but natural creature of some kind.
I mean, if you CREATE the damn universe, you'd know the cheat codes, right?
Just out of interest (not going anywhere with this, just genuinely curious) How much of your belief is based on your own particular ideas and thoughts on what a deity might be and how much comes out the bible? Like on a scale of "there seems to be intent behind all this" and "Jesus reanimated the corpse of Lazarus" where are you?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 06:14:09 PM
Just out of interest (not going anywhere with this, just genuinely curious) How much of your belief is based on your own particular ideas and thoughts on what a deity might be and how much comes out the bible? Like on a scale of "there seems to be intent behind all this" and "Jesus reanimated the corpse of Lazarus" where are you?
It's pretty clear that the bible is a combination of Sumerian mythology and a mash-up of Middle Eastern mythology, at least until the apocrypha. It has been lost and found, translated a million times, and handed over to power-mongers for "editing".
So I don't put a lot of stock in it, to be perfectly honest.
Given that I have never discounted the (staggeringly high) probability that there's some form of conscious entity either behind or emergent from this universe, I don't think we're really opposed on this issue. You give the impression you've perhaps made up your mind to a greater extent than me but that would be about it?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 06:34:41 PM
Given that I have never discounted the (staggeringly high) probability that there's some form of conscious entity either behind or emergent from this universe, I don't think we're really opposed on this issue. You give the impression you've perhaps made up your mind to a greater extent than me but that would be about it?
No, I think your mind is equally made up.
In any case, I think parts of the bible are fascinating, and in general it's a great read; like
A Game of Thrones with more treachery and mayhem, but again, it's been monkeyed with since the beginning.
And then there's parts where it just goes "I ate the brown acid", like Ecclesiastes 9:9 or Genesis 16: 8-9 or for added hilarity, Exodus 7: 10-11 and Leviticus 21: 18-20.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 06:50:29 PM
No, I think your mind is equally made up.
If it's any consolation, I'm leaning much more heavily toward there being something, I just have absolutely no idea what. Actually that's not strictly true, I have fucking millions of ideas what, it's working out which that has me stumped. I don't even completely rule out the Cartman-jehova scenario but I do find that one a lot more far fetched than most of the others.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 06:58:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 06:50:29 PM
No, I think your mind is equally made up.
If it's any consolation, I'm leaning much more heavily toward there being something, I just have absolutely no idea what. Actually that's not strictly true, I have fucking millions of ideas what, it's working out which that has me stumped. I don't even completely rule out the Cartman-jehova scenario but I do find that one a lot more far fetched than most of the others.
Well, it's not a consolation, really, because what other people believe - as one filthy hippie once said - "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I do not care if another person worships a thousand gods or none."
The thing that most people don't seem to understand - on ALL sides of the debate - is that personal beliefs are just that: Personal. I have no right to impose my beliefs on others, and I'll be fucked if I let someone else impose their beliefs on me.
Well LMNO hit that note:
QuoteIt's when their anti-rational and non-reality-based ideas and beliefs affect me, is when it starts mattering to me.
And that's probably the key point for me. I don't give a fuck if you think drinking two shots of bleach on tuesdays keeps you regular, it's when you turn up at my house with a bottle that I take umbrage with.
I'm not too keen on you telling others about your bleach beliefs either as this would likely end badly for some. So problems then arise.
Don't take that to imply that I think religious beliefs are equivalent to drinking bleach. There just happens to be a bottle next to me and I'm pulling examples from my arse. Also, P3nt, Roger, have a look at that Sapolsky lecture if you can. There's a lot of other shit that could probably be dragged into this but I've honestly got no idea where to start right now.
Yeah, it's the imposing parts that get to me.
Although, I suppose it could be rightly said that either side could be total dicks about imposing their worldview. I fall into the "benevolent scientist-king" way of thinking pretty easily, but that has it's own special horror.
"I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."
:nuke:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2014, 10:39:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 10:15:36 PM
Yes, this is what I was talking about. The pursuit of scientific inquiry was considered one of the most God-glorifying pursuits, because what more noble subject is there for man than to study the Creation of God?
I'm not really sure what happened after that, or why for some reason most Born-Agains hate science.
For people like Twid and I, it still is the ultimate holy work. Figuring out God's rulebook, so to speak.
And there was always an anti-science crowd. In the time period we're talking about, it was mostly in England.
Count me in. I'm convinced it's somewhere spread over Heavy Metal albums.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 23, 2014, 07:17:04 PM
Yeah, it's the imposing parts that get to me.
Although, I suppose it could be rightly said that either side could be total dicks about imposing their worldview. I fall into the "benevolent scientist-king" way of thinking pretty easily, but that has it's own special horror.
"I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."
:nuke:
Balls.
"I AM BECOME COMMON SENSE, ENDER OF GLOBAL WAR."
The bomb is the best thing that happened to humanity in the last century, in terms of less dead people.
Quote from: All father, Bearman on April 23, 2014, 07:21:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2014, 10:39:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 10:15:36 PM
Yes, this is what I was talking about. The pursuit of scientific inquiry was considered one of the most God-glorifying pursuits, because what more noble subject is there for man than to study the Creation of God?
I'm not really sure what happened after that, or why for some reason most Born-Agains hate science.
For people like Twid and I, it still is the ultimate holy work. Figuring out God's rulebook, so to speak.
And there was always an anti-science crowd. In the time period we're talking about, it was mostly in England.
Count me in. I'm convinced it's somewhere spread over Heavy Metal albums.
Any Molly Hatchet cover would have made an appropriate illustration for the Book of Samuel.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 07:04:02 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 06:58:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 06:50:29 PM
No, I think your mind is equally made up.
If it's any consolation, I'm leaning much more heavily toward there being something, I just have absolutely no idea what. Actually that's not strictly true, I have fucking millions of ideas what, it's working out which that has me stumped. I don't even completely rule out the Cartman-jehova scenario but I do find that one a lot more far fetched than most of the others.
Well, it's not a consolation, really, because what other people believe - as one filthy hippie once said - "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I do not care if another person worships a thousand gods or none."
The thing that most people don't seem to understand - on ALL sides of the debate - is that personal beliefs are just that: Personal. I have no right to impose my beliefs on others, and I'll be fucked if I let someone else impose their beliefs on me.
Can't disagree in principle but in practice some beliefs are viral. Especially the more politically exploited ones. The more people believe those, the more unpleasant the situation seems to be. The imposition thing is exactly what I stand against. Catch 22 - how do you prevent a faith from imposing it's beliefs on you without imposing your own beliefs (ie "I can believe whatever I like") on them.
So I attack, I ridicule, but no bones about it - what I'd like to happen is for a specific subset of believers to realise how fucking retarded their belief is in the hope that they'll stop believing it and, thus, stop trying to impose it on me.
I'm not really talking about belief or faith, what I'm talking about is religion, the - we've got it all sussed out and you had better listen up if you know what's good for you - crowd. The organisation, the structure, it's mostly diluted nowadays (used to be a lot nastier) but it's still just a toothless monster, no less monstrous for the lack of fangs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 07:21:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 23, 2014, 07:17:04 PM
Yeah, it's the imposing parts that get to me.
Although, I suppose it could be rightly said that either side could be total dicks about imposing their worldview. I fall into the "benevolent scientist-king" way of thinking pretty easily, but that has it's own special horror.
"I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."
:nuke:
Balls.
"I AM BECOME COMMON SENSE, ENDER OF GLOBAL WAR."
The bomb is the best thing that happened to humanity in the last century, in terms of less dead people.
By fuck, you have a point there! Never looked at it quite like that before :eek:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 07:26:03 PM
Can't disagree in principle but in practice some beliefs are viral.
The idea of not being allowed to transmit a belief is odious; it is just that nobody should be able to FORCE the idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 07:21:58 PM
By fuck, you have a point there! Never looked at it quite like that before :eek:
Can you imagine what the last half of 20C would have looked like without a massive, world-ending shit hammer suspended over it? World War II would have been a sideshow by comparison.
Last half of the 20C? Lets look at 2014, in no particular order - Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Ukraine, Greece, Venuzeula, Egypt, Israel, North Korea..... All perfectly capable of gearing towards conventional warfare in a flash and standing armies all round in iffy situations that could easily go very badly and drag in neighbours.
If it wasn't for various nuclear powers threatening the IRL banhammer then there'd probably be wars ongoing all over the show.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 07:39:45 PM
Last half of the 20C? Lets look at 2014, in no particular order - Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Ukraine, Greece, Venuzeula, Egypt, Israel, North Korea..... All perfectly capable of gearing towards conventional warfare in a flash and standing armies all round in iffy situations that could easily go very badly and drag in neighbours.
If it wasn't for various nuclear powers threatening the IRL banhammer then there'd probably be wars ongoing all over the show.
Small wars happen all the time. It takes a special set of circumstances to go full potato.
For example, Russia and USA/UK staring at each other over the ruins of Nazi Germany, thinking about being the last man standing.
This is making me wonder if there's a current graph or chart of the various defensive treaties currently in place.
The other side is, who knows what small war or event will drag in everyone else? I doubt many soldiers understood why they were in a trench because a foreign archduke was shot, for example. The modern equivalents abound.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 07:28:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 07:26:03 PM
Can't disagree in principle but in practice some beliefs are viral.
The idea of not being allowed to transmit a belief is odious; it is just that nobody should be able to FORCE the idea.
The organised religions, the political power structure deity-systems, work a method of implanting the equivalent of a mental back door in the believers. Irrational orders "Backed by God" must be obeyed. It's a critical thought exploit and it's inserted on purpose, with malice aforethought, for reasons that have nothing to do with belief or spirituality.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 07:56:27 PM
This is making me wonder if there's a current graph or chart of the various defensive treaties currently in place.
The other side is, who knows what small war or event will drag in everyone else? I doubt many soldiers understood why they were in a trench because a foreign archduke was shot, for example. The modern equivalents abound.
That war was on rails for a century. Arguably since 1610.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 23, 2014, 03:47:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 08:00:48 AM
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
Why does what other people believe matter so much to you? Isn't there some point where you go "oh, well, it isn't any of my business unless it affects me"?
In general terms, I suppose it doesn't. In very specific, political, shapers-of-public-policy terms, it very much does.
For example, Todd Akin: Denies Evolutionary theory, man-made climate change, and Biology (he's the "legitimate rape" guy), and he served on the Congressional Comittee of Science, Space, and Technology. And he's not the only loon on that committee. There's also Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell, and it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
It's when their anti-rational and non-reality-based ideas and beliefs affect me, is when it starts mattering to me.
Right, when policy-makers start trying to apply their dogmas to public policy, that's a problem. Regardless of whether the dogma is religious or ideological.
But when we start getting into "I don't understand how those people can believe in those things" we're wandering, in my opinion, into a territory that's awfully familiar, and awfully sticky. What people do with their beliefs, IMO, has a lot in common with what people do with their digestive systems or their genitals; don't try to impose it on anyone unwilling, and it's none of my business.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 03:34:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 03:16:07 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.
Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.
I've recommended it before, but I recommend Sapolsky's take on why humans believe in spiritual things. If you're genuinely interested, that is.
I must have missed the recommendation. I'm still working through Sapolsky whenever I get spare time and that sounds like it well worth a look at. Book or lecture?
There's his infamous Christmas lecture, which I can't find online anywhere, this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI and also an essay called "Circling the blanket for God" in his book "The Trouble with Testosterone".
I'll move the book up the list.
As for the video, it was the one I thought. I'm pretty fucked so I'll try and think of something to say about that tomorrow.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 04:38:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 23, 2014, 03:47:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 08:00:48 AM
Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"
Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.
Why does what other people believe matter so much to you? Isn't there some point where you go "oh, well, it isn't any of my business unless it affects me"?
In general terms, I suppose it doesn't. In very specific, political, shapers-of-public-policy terms, it very much does.
For example, Todd Akin: Denies Evolutionary theory, man-made climate change, and Biology (he's the "legitimate rape" guy), and he served on the Congressional Comittee of Science, Space, and Technology. And he's not the only loon on that committee. There's also Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell, and it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
It's when their anti-rational and non-reality-based ideas and beliefs affect me, is when it starts mattering to me.
Sort of half this and half because it really, genuinely disturbs me. I was bombarded with this crap as a child, a lot of people went out their way to convince a young, highly impressionable child that the bible (ie - the holy miracle penned directly by the hand of gandalf the omniscient) was a real thing.
It messed up my head. It was like giant puddle of mental AIDS that took absolutely fucking ages to get rid of. It wasn't just me this was done to. It was all the kids at my school and all the adults that had been there before me. It was most of a race. A fucking race of homo sapiens! I live in a country that still describes itself as "Christian" Not "Buffy Fans" or "Trekkies" but some kind of throwback ancient forerunner where fandom requires you to actually believe in the vampires.
It's fucking pathetic. It annoys the shit out of me.
How aware are you of the degree to which your traumatic experience prevents you from thinking or talking about religion and religious people rationally?
It's not an uncommon response to trauma; for example, some women who have been abused distrust all men and consider them inherently rapists, or that some gays who have been abused distrust all straight people and feel that they are justified in hating them, as a whole. However, it's also not very productive or prosocial, and you might be served best by trying to dismantle that particular block.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
You and Twid have never tried to convince me. The majority of theists I encountered growing up did. They did so with the sanction of the government and the education system. I also feel the need to make a distinction between people who believe in some form of creator or deity or intelligence behind the universe and the ones that piss me off, the one's who adhere to the bible explanation. No one ever told me to explore the possibility of there being some kind of intelligent creator, no. They told me his name, a bunch of stuff he did and said and a bunch of crap about some white guy who walked on water.
And they told me it like it was some kind of fact. :argh!:
And in conversations like this one, you still continually enter the same bad feedback loop of insisting that the vast majority of religious systems and religious people match that image you have in your head, and then when people produce evidence that counters your preconceived notions, you say "well I didn't mean YOU" and keep on doing it, while insisting you're not.
I suggest that you have a bit of bad archival that could stand attending to.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:25:30 PM
I'll move the book up the list.
As for the video, it was the one I thought. I'm pretty fucked so I'll try and think of something to say about that tomorrow.
Sapolsky's great, partly because while he's a total atheist, he also seeks the reasons and value in behavior he sees as irrational, rather than just dismissing it, and manages to be irreverent (about all things, not just things he doesn't believe) while rarely being offensive. I have seen him manage to be offensive, once.
Quote from: All father, Bearman on April 23, 2014, 07:21:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2014, 10:39:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2014, 10:15:36 PM
Yes, this is what I was talking about. The pursuit of scientific inquiry was considered one of the most God-glorifying pursuits, because what more noble subject is there for man than to study the Creation of God?
I'm not really sure what happened after that, or why for some reason most Born-Agains hate science.
For people like Twid and I, it still is the ultimate holy work. Figuring out God's rulebook, so to speak.
And there was always an anti-science crowd. In the time period we're talking about, it was mostly in England.
Count me in. I'm convinced it's somewhere spread over Heavy Metal albums.
Or <ahem> ICP.
On the subject of personally imposing your view on someone else... I've had it explained to me thusly: imagine a train barreling down on someone sitting on the tracks with their back turned, and headphones on. Would you try to save them? Or, think to yourself "Well, that's their personal choice." Because the thing is, to someone who truly believes, Hell IS that train. How can they not try to save you?
That outlook makes sense to me, and has given me a broader view of why religious types might try to sway me. And, to be honest, I now appreciate the gesture.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 24, 2014, 12:13:37 AM
On the subject of personally imposing your view on someone else... I've had it explained to me thusly: imagine a train barreling down on someone sitting on the tracks with their back turned, and headphones on. Would you try to save them? Or, think to yourself "Well, that's their personal choice." Because the thing is, to someone who truly believes, Hell IS that train. How can they not try to save you?
That outlook makes sense to me, and has given me a broader view of why religious types might try to sway me. And, to be honest, I now appreciate the gesture.
While I can also appreciate the gesture, having gone through a thorough brain washing aimed at convincing me hell is something to fear and base my actions off..,
The same could be said of relieving the people who believe that of the burdon of their horribly misplaced fear.
Put another way:
What if there are no tracks to begin with?
Hey I'm not saying they're right!
Quote from: Hoopla on April 24, 2014, 12:13:37 AM
On the subject of personally imposing your view on someone else... I've had it explained to me thusly: imagine a train barreling down on someone sitting on the tracks with their back turned, and headphones on. Would you try to save them? Or, think to yourself "Well, that's their personal choice." Because the thing is, to someone who truly believes, Hell IS that train. How can they not try to save you?
That outlook makes sense to me, and has given me a broader view of why religious types might try to sway me. And, to be honest, I now appreciate the gesture.
I don't do that. Mostly because I don't KNOW that what I believe in is actually a god. For all I know, it's some horrible trans-dimensional soul-sucker.
The rest of the reason is that there's some people that would sort of ruin heaven for me if they showed up.
http://www.fredvanlente.com/cthulhutract/pages/index.html
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 09:30:55 PM
How aware are you of the degree to which your traumatic experience prevents you from thinking or talking about religion and religious people rationally?
Very. Evidently a whole lot more than yourself.
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 09:30:55 PM
It's not an uncommon response to trauma; for example, some women who have been abused distrust all men and consider them inherently rapists, or that some gays who have been abused distrust all straight people and feel that they are justified in hating them, as a whole. However, it's also not very productive or prosocial, and you might be served best by trying to dismantle that particular block.
Okay, I'll bite - which trauma are we talking about exactly? I was brought up on a diet of mental spaghetti. Fiction was presented as fact. Unravelling all the bullshit that had been pumped into my head took a lot of my time and effort. This was neither a unique or traumatic experience, beyond the metaphorical pain in my ass.
Evidently a significant percentage of my fellow man never went to the trouble of dealing with what (any way you paint it) is a long and protracted form of brainwashing. They express a desire for me to respect them for this and for the most part I do try my best - irrational belief does not necessarily make someone a bad person after all.
But it
is irrational belief. It disturbs me that people believe it. It disturbs me how they are taught it as children. It's one thing for someone to think about the universe and come to the conclusion that there might be something out there, it's an entirely different scenario if they're fucking programmed from birth to believe a bunch of nonsense.
Y'know, I catch hell every time I weigh in on this subject.
But fuck it.
I agree with Pent, and to a lesser extent Roger.
I'm willing to accept that there may be some intent behind the universe. I don't BELIEVE there is, but I recognize that as an unprovable belief. The possibility of outside agency and the open-mindedness required to accept that possibility don't bother me in the least. Quite the opposite, in fact.
But that, to me, is VASTLY different from people who believe in "God", which is what I understand Pent to be talking about. And regardless of his mangled understanding of history, the part where it's really fucking creepy (and seemingly really ignorant) for people in the 21st century to still be believing in religious dogma, I mean, that's spot-on to me. And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2014, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 23, 2014, 09:25:30 PM
I'll move the book up the list.
As for the video, it was the one I thought. I'm pretty fucked so I'll try and think of something to say about that tomorrow.
Sapolsky's great, partly because while he's a total atheist, he also seeks the reasons and value in behavior he sees as irrational, rather than just dismissing it, and manages to be irreverent (about all things, not just things he doesn't believe) while rarely being offensive. I have seen him manage to be offensive, once.
One thing that struck me about that video was the various ties and similarites to some stuff Terrance Mckenna (?) came out with. I'd actually be quite interested in your thoughts in regards to how the historical religious leaders (for want of a better term, i hate to move this into shaman/magic man territory if for no other reason than the in built bias I've got against such terms and how inherently loaded they are) were influenced by schizotypal/OCD issues. There's large parts of that that make a lot of sense to me and the presentation on the whole seems quite logical.
Given the level of crazy in the world, now and historically, religion and rituals derived as a coping/celbration mechanism makes a lot of sense. It's also a much more interesting context to consider how relevant religion is to the modern era from all angles. Particularly fundamentalism and terrorism.
It's also getting me thinking about the actual system again. Recall Stanford prison experiments findings and reactions like P3nt's, which I sympathise and agree with to a great deal in some regards also make a lot more sense. The other end of this relative spectrum would be say, Twid, who again, I can again largely agree with (and am interested in the various explorations of belief structures). There's probably more in common than not between P3nt and Twid but their experience of religious systems and the actors involved have clearly varied substantially.
Apologies for referring to you in the third person Gents, but you're probably the two best examples off-hand of this scale.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I would be much more comfortable with people actually making their own damn minds up but we can't expect too much progress too quickly.
It's relatively reasonable to assume that with the rise of the internet and education of youth in general that unless some really miraculous shit happens the numbers of non-religious (I.e - don't give a shit either way) are probably going to rise and I'd expect to see societies subsequently become more secular. Consider the last 20-odd years in the UK. It used to be damn near impossible to buy anything on a Sunday, now I can purchase almost anything I choose.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 24, 2014, 02:41:56 PM
There's probably more in common than not between P3nt and Twid but their experience of religious systems and the actors involved have clearly varied substantially.
I suspect Nigel's - slightly less than accurate - trauma diagnosis may be influencing your impression here. Allow me to clarify. I've encountered numerous aspects of numerous dogmatic belief systems and many of these encounters have been markedly positive. There are philosophical aspects of many which I totally agree with - "be excellent to each other" kinda sums up nice and succinctly, an aspect I actually admire.
It's not this that I take offence to, it's the supernatural, magical fairy story bullshit that many of these belief systems seem to somehow require that I find ridiculous and weird and somewhere between disturbing and disappointing. It's the idea that stories about witches and wizards and magical boats are informing actual real live decisions about humanity and it's future. It's the fact that, in order to justify the ethics of this scientific discovery or that, it must be found to be in accordance with gods will.
Basically what LMNO was talking about. Now I am very aware of the current overall trend toward secularity. I expect/hope things will continue on this trajectory but we aren't out of the woods yet. Something that happened in the bible will still be used as a reason for dumb laws. Any time you hear the words "playing god" in an argument against something, have a think about how much bullshit I'm talking here.
So here's the deal - that's the exact thing I want to end sooner rather than later. Not believing there might be something out there. Hell, I don't give a fuck if someone wants to believe Lord of the fucking Rings really happened. What I want to end is people teaching it to kids and presenting it as fact. Now here's the kicker - the reason it hasn't quite ended yet is because people still believe it. If those people stopped believing it? Problem solved. Despite this sounding absolutely wonderful, I'm of the firm opinion that it's not okay to do that.
So what am I left with? My own personal code of ethics tells me I can attack the belief but not the believer. So I attack the belief. I ridicule it anytime it's mentioned. I spent months of my life making the Baby Jesus Show. That's what that was all about. I'm left wondering if some of you guys either lied about liking it or got something completely different from it?
It's not a reaction to trauma, it's simply a pragmatic attempt to make the world a better place by helping in some small way to destroy a form of retardedness that people are still teaching children in school. I rant and I rave against it, not because christians breast fed me barbed wire as a child or whatever theory our resident "expert" is currently running with. I do it because that's my style. The voice of Baby Jesus - that was me remember?
Nah, I still get a kick out the Baby Jesus Show. And I don't see anything wrong with confronting wildly absurd beliefs with ridicule, provided that it occurs in public or if it is in private, that all parties are there voluntarily.
I'm not a diagnostician, I didn't "diagnose" shit. But your own descriptions were of traumatizing events, and if you are going to describe traumatizing events don't be surprised if people take you at your word. I do think that your defensiveness and your response speaks more volumes about the intensity of your emotional reaction than anything.
Defensiveness? I can get how I come across as emotional, it's kind of part and parcel of the comedic rant medium. Even the trauma thing, yeah I have a bona fide real world experience which I generally portray from the "abused child/bible camp survivor" perspective so one might logically assume I was traumatised by this experience. Trust me - it was not traumatic. A bunch of born again space cadets tried to brainwash me at summer camp. At 12 or 13 years old I was already way to smart for that shit. A bit shocked that brainwashing bible camps were actually a real thing but that was surprise and disgust, not trauma.
But defensive? Shot out of leftfield, I'm shooting for a mix of aggressive/passive aggressive how did I miss the target by such a wide margin?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Obviously. School is for math and physics. If people want to indoctrinate early, that's why they have churches. Let the superior ideology win.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I'm not a rabid dogmatic atheist. I would view trying to eradicate religion as a fool's errand, and probably a bit of a dick move.
However, I would be curious to see the effect on religion if science was stressed from an early age in a society's free high-quality education with an emphasis on critical thinking. I don't know enough about the educational systems of other countries to know if such a society exists currently.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2014, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
You and Twid have never tried to convince me.
That's because we're looking forward to puking cheap beer out of heaven, down on to your filthy sinner heathen head as you fry in hell.
We're kinda dicks, that way.
Damn it, I was hoping for good beer in heaven.
Also, damn the things I miss when I take the day off of posting. Trying to play catch up. I think this is the first time in a while that I've posted a thread and it has a few pages for me to catch up on.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2014, 06:14:09 PM
Just out of interest (not going anywhere with this, just genuinely curious) How much of your belief is based on your own particular ideas and thoughts on what a deity might be and how much comes out the bible? Like on a scale of "there seems to be intent behind all this" and "Jesus reanimated the corpse of Lazarus" where are you?
My religious beliefs at their baseline can only be described as pantheistic. I've already chucked out the afterlife, at least as I previously understood it, even though I'm still open to the idea and hope I can be proven wrong. My religious experiment for the time being is just completely terminated, and that's fine. I didn't even celebrate Passover. But, with my religious hat, I can only view the seeming miraculous events that happen in the Bible as some sort of allegory. I accept the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I think he had some interesting and poignant things to say, and I think some of the things he did were subject to exaggeration. That ultimately has nothing to do with God. I'm supposed to be Jewish right now, so that means he's a bloody heretic. Really what I think is that he was just some dude with some good ideas that were extrapolated from a system that had some good and some bad.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 24, 2014, 02:41:56 PM
The other end of this relative spectrum would be say, Twid, who again, I can again largely agree with (and am interested in the various explorations of belief structures). There's probably more in common than not between P3nt and Twid but their experience of religious systems and the actors involved have clearly varied substantially.
What surprises me about Pent in these conversations, recently, is that Pent seems to be willing to entertain the idea of God and the afterlife, where his iconoclasm originally struck me as pure antitheism. Indeed, Pent offered me a couple of examples of how surviving death could work when I started to doubt the afterlife. Obviously, I'm struggling with spiritual significance to being human at the present time and just have to put religious framework aside for the time being until I can kinda regain my spirituality, one way or another before I pick the experiment up again. So, I probably do have a bit in common with him in this regard, and he is older and probably has it worked out a bit more.
I can't say that I had any truly bad experiences growing up Catholic, other than the occasional and inevitable sense of guilt. I can't say that I had any bad experiences as a Pagan. And other than starting my Judaism on Yom Kippur, I can't say I've otherwise had any bad experiences with that. My dad was going to be a priest, and while there has been as certain, expectation, for lack of a better word, I've never been harmed for aberrant religious expression. Shit, I left an altar up in my room when I was a teenager for some kind of useless spell, dad came in to wake me up for school, I was already awake. He took a minute to see what was up with that and said, "Kevin, time to get up for school" walked out and nothing more was said of it. He even nervously accepted the possibility that I might be gay. It was a challenge on my part, and he felt backed in a corner, but he wasn't going to boot me out if I said I wasn't straight (I merely said I wasn't gay at the end of it. Heh.) So, yeah quite probably, my experiences with religion would be entirely alien to Pent.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 24, 2014, 05:15:55 PM
Something that happened in the bible will still be used as a reason for dumb laws. Any time you hear the words "playing god" in an argument against something, have a think about how much bullshit I'm talking here.
These are two points I can get entirely behind. In a secular society, as any society ought to be in order to guarantee the maximum amount of freedom, religion should never be used as a basis of legislation. And of course, I'm a pantheist studying biology. Why shouldn't we play God, on a cautious level? We already have, and have reaped benefit from it. We have split the atom, walked on the moon, hell, even domesticating animals and brewing beer is playing God. And on the pantheist bit, we ARE God by definition, within that context.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 02:07:24 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I'm not a rabid dogmatic atheist. I would view trying to eradicate religion as a fool's errand, and probably a bit of a dick move.
However, I would be curious to see the effect on religion if science was stressed from an early age in a society's free high-quality education with an emphasis on critical thinking. I don't know enough about the educational systems of other countries to know if such a society exists currently.
I'm getting enough of a high quality education in the sciences that MIT reps are coming in to say that just because we're at community college doesn't mean that they won't let our credits transfer, and quite the opposite. Our science courses are apparently, in their own words, rigorous enough that we might want to reconsider going onto a 4 year state college. I won't for financial reasons. But my point here is that I'm going into a field that traditionally evaporates a person's belief in a higher power (physics and biology specialists tend to be more atheistic than chemists and engineers), and while it has helped to evaporate my understanding of immortality, it has paradoxically only served to reinforce my belief in some sort of higher power. From a rational perspective, I suspect that that is just how my brain is wired. But biology, while for some is a faith-killer, has been a reinforcing agent that merely kills specific doctrines about God.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
This appears to be true in Twid and my case, at any rate.
God's not a psycho. If he is and I'm believing in the wrong god, I'm okay with that, too.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 02:47:32 AM
My religious beliefs at their baseline can only be described as pantheistic. I've already chucked out the afterlife, at least as I previously understood it, even though I'm still open to the idea and hope I can be proven wrong.
I choose to believe in an afterlife, because I refuse to believe the universe could allow something as cool and awesome as myself to cease existing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2014, 04:01:46 AM
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 02:47:32 AM
My religious beliefs at their baseline can only be described as pantheistic. I've already chucked out the afterlife, at least as I previously understood it, even though I'm still open to the idea and hope I can be proven wrong.
I choose to believe in an afterlife, because I refuse to believe the universe could allow something as cool and awesome as myself to cease existing.
I like this idea. I'll have to let it sink in.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2014, 04:00:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
This appears to be true in Twid and my case, at any rate.
God's not a psycho. If he is and I'm believing in the wrong god, I'm okay with that, too.
Most of the other, non-Discordian theists I know are also like Roger and I. Otherwise I probably wouldn't be friends with them. And most of the people I know are theists. That's just how American society works out, demographically.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 04:06:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2014, 04:00:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
This appears to be true in Twid and my case, at any rate.
God's not a psycho. If he is and I'm believing in the wrong god, I'm okay with that, too.
Most of the other, non-Discordian theists I know are also like Roger and I. Otherwise I probably wouldn't be friends with them. And most of the people I know are theists. That's just how American society works out, demographically.
It's because you live in an Eastern state, where people aren't by definition bugshit.
Out here, religion is usually poisonous.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 24, 2014, 09:00:37 PM
Defensiveness? I can get how I come across as emotional, it's kind of part and parcel of the comedic rant medium. Even the trauma thing, yeah I have a bona fide real world experience which I generally portray from the "abused child/bible camp survivor" perspective so one might logically assume I was traumatised by this experience. Trust me - it was not traumatic. A bunch of born again space cadets tried to brainwash me at summer camp. At 12 or 13 years old I was already way to smart for that shit. A bit shocked that brainwashing bible camps were actually a real thing but that was surprise and disgust, not trauma.
But defensive? Shot out of leftfield, I'm shooting for a mix of aggressive/passive aggressive how did I miss the target by such a wide margin?
Problem is, when you try to shoehorn a comedic rant into a conversation that people are taking seriously, they might just take you seriously too, especially when part of your "comedic rant" is calling them names or denigrating them for what they believe in. It's sort of like how telling nigger jokes rarely goes over well unless you're telling them at a Klan rally.
Thing is, I think theism in heavily populated areas (East coast, etc) tends to be milder because people are by necessity more socialized.
It comes back to that "rugged individualist" shit. It makes more sense to have a cruel god with that mindset.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2014, 04:20:28 AM
Thing is, I think theism in heavily populated areas (East coast, etc) tends to be milder because people are by necessity more socialized.
It comes back to that "rugged individualist" shit. It makes more sense to have a cruel god with that mindset.
The East Coast is heavily urban, and Boston in particular is a melting pot (America is not a melting pot. Parts of it are, other parts are purification factories). Boston gets an influx of new blood constantly. Geographically about as close as you can get to the Old World, top notch colleges, best hospitals in North America, etc.... So people come here from everywhere. That's why only one of my parents is American in the first place. That shit wouldn't have happened in Wyoming. It makes utter sense that Boston would be both fairly religious, but within reason. We have a shit load of Catholics, because we have a lot of Italians and Irish and Polish. Liberal Catholics because we don't only have Italians and Irish and Polish, but rather a shitload else of a variety bag. And all of this, from a city that was a Puritan colony. That right there is brilliant. A Protestant theocracy becomes the cradle of American pluralism with an emphasis on open minded non-Anglo Catholicism. It's a crazy fluke. And I think that's part of why I love it here so much.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 03:19:04 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 24, 2014, 02:41:56 PM
The other end of this relative spectrum would be say, Twid, who again, I can again largely agree with (and am interested in the various explorations of belief structures). There's probably more in common than not between P3nt and Twid but their experience of religious systems and the actors involved have clearly varied substantially.
What surprises me about Pent in these conversations, recently, is that Pent seems to be willing to entertain the idea of God and the afterlife, where his iconoclasm originally struck me as pure antitheism. Indeed, Pent offered me a couple of examples of how surviving death could work when I started to doubt the afterlife. Obviously, I'm struggling with spiritual significance to being human at the present time and just have to put religious framework aside for the time being until I can kinda regain my spirituality, one way or another before I pick the experiment up again. So, I probably do have a bit in common with him in this regard, and he is older and probably has it worked out a bit more.
I can't say that I had any truly bad experiences growing up Catholic, other than the occasional and inevitable sense of guilt. I can't say that I had any bad experiences as a Pagan. And other than starting my Judaism on Yom Kippur, I can't say I've otherwise had any bad experiences with that. My dad was going to be a priest, and while there has been as certain, expectation, for lack of a better word, I've never been harmed for aberrant religious expression. Shit, I left an altar up in my room when I was a teenager for some kind of useless spell, dad came in to wake me up for school, I was already awake. He took a minute to see what was up with that and said, "Kevin, time to get up for school" walked out and nothing more was said of it. He even nervously accepted the possibility that I might be gay. It was a challenge on my part, and he felt backed in a corner, but he wasn't going to boot me out if I said I wasn't straight (I merely said I wasn't gay at the end of it. Heh.) So, yeah quite probably, my experiences with religion would be entirely alien to Pent.
It's important to me for me to remember these two anecdotes about my dad, so I'll comment on it further. He's a religious nut. He is. And firmly in the Catholic camp in that regard. But goddamn it, is he pretty cool about it otherwise. He is reluctantly accepting of homosexuality. I know this because I was hanging out with these two girls in high school a lot and he asked me about that and I mentioned they were fooling around with each other (I was fooling around with them too but I didn't let him in on that) and he was like, "I like it that you can be open minded enough to be friends with (who he assumed were) gay people." And I know he accepts science because he referred to the Twelve Bens (a range of sort of mountains in his part of Ireland) as being millions of years old. I like seeing that side of him. Hell, when he first heard my band was called Anarchangel he got this mischievous smirk on his face and then changed the subject. But the smirk was there.
Actually that smirk was an awesome moment. It was a smug and bemused smirk. You could tell he liked the name.
It's a boss name.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 03:38:38 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 02:07:24 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I'm not a rabid dogmatic atheist. I would view trying to eradicate religion as a fool's errand, and probably a bit of a dick move.
However, I would be curious to see the effect on religion if science was stressed from an early age in a society's free high-quality education with an emphasis on critical thinking. I don't know enough about the educational systems of other countries to know if such a society exists currently.
I'm getting enough of a high quality education in the sciences that MIT reps are coming in to say that just because we're at community college doesn't mean that they won't let our credits transfer, and quite the opposite. Our science courses are apparently, in their own words, rigorous enough that we might want to reconsider going onto a 4 year state college. I won't for financial reasons. But my point here is that I'm going into a field that traditionally evaporates a person's belief in a higher power (physics and biology specialists tend to be more atheistic than chemists and engineers), and while it has helped to evaporate my understanding of immortality, it has paradoxically only served to reinforce my belief in some sort of higher power. From a rational perspective, I suspect that that is just how my brain is wired. But biology, while for some is a faith-killer, has been a reinforcing agent that merely kills specific doctrines about God.
yeah, but I'm talking about if you had started sciencing when you were 3. Your anecdote, while appreciated and informative to be sure, isn't really relevant to what I was saying.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 04:18:05 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 24, 2014, 09:00:37 PM
Defensiveness? I can get how I come across as emotional, it's kind of part and parcel of the comedic rant medium. Even the trauma thing, yeah I have a bona fide real world experience which I generally portray from the "abused child/bible camp survivor" perspective so one might logically assume I was traumatised by this experience. Trust me - it was not traumatic. A bunch of born again space cadets tried to brainwash me at summer camp. At 12 or 13 years old I was already way to smart for that shit. A bit shocked that brainwashing bible camps were actually a real thing but that was surprise and disgust, not trauma.
But defensive? Shot out of leftfield, I'm shooting for a mix of aggressive/passive aggressive how did I miss the target by such a wide margin?
Problem is, when you try to shoehorn a comedic rant into a conversation that people are taking seriously, they might just take you seriously too, especially when part of your "comedic rant" is calling them names or denigrating them for what they believe in. It's sort of like how telling nigger jokes rarely goes over well unless you're telling them at a Klan rally.
Given that people choose to be religious and are born with their skin color, that's not an analogy that holds up. And I don't know if you realize it but you're coming off very condescending in this thread. Telling people why you think they're wrong and/or what colossal jerks they are for being (subjectively, in your opinion) wrong doesn't make for much of a discussion, if that's all you're bringing to it. Trying to compare people who think religion is a little ridiculous to people who hate other people because of their skin color is even a little offensive.
ETA: Not trying to pick on you or be a dick, just mentioning it because it's not the first time it's happened in a thread of this subject and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion this is a pretty interesting topic and I feel like you're trying to shut it down rather than open it up, unintentional though that may be.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 04:18:05 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 24, 2014, 09:00:37 PM
Defensiveness? I can get how I come across as emotional, it's kind of part and parcel of the comedic rant medium. Even the trauma thing, yeah I have a bona fide real world experience which I generally portray from the "abused child/bible camp survivor" perspective so one might logically assume I was traumatised by this experience. Trust me - it was not traumatic. A bunch of born again space cadets tried to brainwash me at summer camp. At 12 or 13 years old I was already way to smart for that shit. A bit shocked that brainwashing bible camps were actually a real thing but that was surprise and disgust, not trauma.
But defensive? Shot out of leftfield, I'm shooting for a mix of aggressive/passive aggressive how did I miss the target by such a wide margin?
Problem is, when you try to shoehorn a comedic rant into a conversation that people are taking seriously, they might just take you seriously too, especially when part of your "comedic rant" is calling them names or denigrating them for what they believe in. It's sort of like how telling nigger jokes rarely goes over well unless you're telling them at a Klan rally.
Yeah, I got ya. Needs work. From my perspective it's the whole "taking seriously" thing that I'm arguing against. I can't argue against taking something seriously by taking it seriously myself but, at the same time I have to walk the fine line between insulting the belief and insulting the believer by association. I try my best to stress this but it's not easy. Comes across as backpedalling?
It's like how do you tell someone who's falling for a 419 scam that 419 scams are dumb, without making the victim out to be dumb. FTR I don't think people who fall for 419 scams are dumb, they've simply fallen prey to a well known psychological exploit. Also FTR - I see institutionalised religion and 419 scams as almost exactly the same thing.
Something I probably often allude to but maybe have never explicitly stated and which Twid made mention of is my take on what I'd maybe call "spirituality" or "metaphysics" in the context of religion conversations. The idea that I do not find the notion of some form of intelligence/creator in any way outlandish or ridiculous and, in fact, my guess is there's a far higher probability of such a scenario being true than not.
The words "religion" and "faith" however are very loaded in my mind, and associated with the aforementioned 419 scam. "Belief" is also something I'm very iffy about. I realise I'm probably in a tiny minority, globally when I say that any form of belief, in pretty much anything, supernatural or otherwise strikes me as unnecessary and (potentially) harmful/exploitable. I'm not sure it is utterly unavoidable but the less the better, IMO. "Belief" defined as - without evidence - to clarify semantics.
Now, when I find myself in a tiny minority on some issue, it becomes much more important to me to test this notion by debating with people who do claim to believe stuff as to why it might be a good thing. Especially people who strike me as smarter and better informed than the average Joe.
Also, there is a strong abrasive/dismissive/sarcastic component to my personality which works well in shooting the shit and a few other situations but often doesn't go down so well in others. Only just noticed this effect (embarrassed to say, my ego had put it down to you, since it's most often yourself that reacts strongly to this with something similar) but now that I've noticed, I'll dial it off when it isn't perhaps best suited.
I don't take religion seriously, and it's OK if you don't take religion seriously, but it's not OK to shit on other people for taking religion seriously, IMO.
You know, ECH, "they weren't born that way" is the stupidest fucking excuse for justifying bigoted behavior I think I've ever heard.
You don't like that I think it's bigotry? Oh fucking well.
We CAN have discussions about religion without resorting to childish "Those People are all ignorant, stupid, superstitious, gullible, brainwahed" etc. verbiage. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion, I'm trying to point out that that kind of language is bigotry, and that it's a super, super-shitty thing to say to people who are ostensibly your friends who happen to be religious.
Also, FWIW "they weren't born that way" doesn't hold up as a defense against religious discrimination lawsuits, and I don't see why I should let it hold up as a defense in my conscience.
There seems to be some sort of line that gets crossed when it goes from belief to action.
Sure, it's fine to believe that having faith in a deity will protect you from the venom of snakes. It's another thing to roll around in a viper pit thinking you'll be fine.
Or, for that matter, it's fine to believe that those who don't share your faith are going to Hell, but it's another thing to treat the faithless as lesser creatures.
Perhaps summarizable as "it's foolish to put yourself in danger because of your religious beliefs, and it's wrong to shit on people because of them".
Maybe it's perception bias, but there a lot of people who do a lot of foolish and wrong things because of their beliefs. And a lot of those beliefs have some sort of religious component.
Or am I missing something? I feel like I may be.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
Maybe it's perception bias, but there a lot of people who do a lot of foolish and wrong things because of their beliefs. And a lot of those beliefs have some sort of religious component.
Or am I missing something? I feel like I may be.
I am not sure, really. Basically all I have an objection to is blanket labeling all religious people foolish and wrong because some religious people do foolish and wrong things on behalf of their religion.
We've gone a long way from the topic of the OP.
If anyone else watched that sapolsky video, it'd be much more interesting to discuss that.
Just saying.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 01:10:01 PM
Given that people choose to be religious and are born with their skin color, that's not an analogy that holds up.
So we're giving the blacks a break on account of how that was the way they were born?
There's something nasty in there if you unpack it all the way.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 04:46:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
Maybe it's perception bias, but there a lot of people who do a lot of foolish and wrong things because of their beliefs. And a lot of those beliefs have some sort of religious component.
Or am I missing something? I feel like I may be.
I am not sure, really. Basically all I have an objection to is blanket labeling all religious people foolish and wrong because some religious people do foolish and wrong things on behalf of their religion.
We've gone a long way from the topic of the OP.
As mentioned in my last tl/dr post - people believing foolish and wrong things are not necessarily foolish and wrong, they just happen to believe foolish and wrong things.
It's easy for me, on this side of the argument, to understand this distinction and still hold said people in very high regard. It's not such an easy distinction for the believers to make, however, since it's their belief that is under attack. A belief that they have internalised and taken ownership of, as a fundamental aspect of their psyche.
Smart people are no less capable of doing dumb things than idiots. Nobody likes being called on doing something dumb, however it makes them no less smart and the thing no less dumb. Faith in dogmatic religion is a dumb mistake that many smart people have been making repeatedly since it was programmed into them from birth. It's understandable. The ego is saturated with it, it's built on strong foundations.
I don't care how much I respect someone, I aint going to sit back and pretend this is okay. In my mind, if you respect someone, it's wrong to humour them. What do you do when a member of your family refuses to vaccinate their kids in favour of homeopathy? Do you just say "Okay, I'll respect your beliefs"?
There isn't very much, if any, difference between you "not giving people a break" for believing in something you think is dumb, and religious people "not giving people a break" for being Atheists. The bottom line is that unless they make it your business, people's religious beliefs are none of your business.
There's a material difference between believing in god and believing in not vaccinating, because one affects no one but the believer, and the other has potential public health ramifications. Likewise, faith is not a matter of empirical evidence, but homeopathy is.
Basically, you can choose to be an asshole about it because of your beliefs, or you can choose not to.
The REASON we are a long way from the fucking OP is that Twid wanted to talk about the purpose of religion inside the framework of said religion. But then it was all fairy godmother shit AGAIN. That was rebutted, AGAIN, and now we're ONCE MORE rebutting the rebuttal of the rebuttal and the person who tried to stop the derail has now been called "condescending" for her troubles.
Fuck that. Twid, we will have to have this conversation elsewhere, because it is apparently not possible to have it here, between the people screeching COMEDIC RANTS and the people getting mad about people getting mad about said COMEDIC RANTS.
The EXACT same COMEDIC RANTS that were brought up in threads that were debating whether or not God existed. A fucking generic shutdown of any conversation that is for some fucking odd reason "taboo" around here (HAVE SOME IRONY, IT'S FUCKING HALF-PRICE).
Fuck this. This is a fucking disgrace.
Twid, hit me up.
ETA: And Nigel, thanks for trying to prevent the SAME OLD SONG AND DANCE. I appreciate it, I am sure Twid does too.
As a point of comparison:
QuoteI don't care how much I respect someone, I aint going to sit back and pretend this is okay. In my mind, if you respect someone, it's wrong to humour them. What do you do when a member of your family refuses to vaccinate their kids in favour of homeopathy? Do you just say "Okay, I'll respect your beliefs"?
I have heard
this exact argument used as an argument for Christian proselytizing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2014, 05:20:22 PM
The REASON we are a long way from the fucking OP is that Twid wanted to talk about the purpose of religion inside the framework of said religion. But then it was all fairy godmother shit AGAIN. That was rebutted, AGAIN, and now we're ONCE MORE rebutting the rebuttal of the rebuttal and the person who tried to stop the derail has now been called "condescending" for her troubles.
Fuck that. Twid, we will have to have this conversation elsewhere, because it is apparently not possible to have it here, between the people screeching COMEDIC RANTS and the people getting mad about people getting mad about said COMEDIC RANTS.
The EXACT same COMEDIC RANTS that were brought up in threads that were debating whether or not God existed. A fucking generic shutdown of any conversation that is for some fucking odd reason "taboo" around here (HAVE SOME IRONY, IT'S FUCKING HALF-PRICE).
Fuck this. This is a fucking disgrace.
Twid, hit me up.
ETA: And Nigel, thanks for trying to prevent the SAME OLD SONG AND DANCE. I appreciate it, I am sure Twid does too.
YW. I'm sick of this bullshit too.
Fair enough - bullshit ends. I'm out.
I can only hope that next time a discussion concerning religion comes up, you'll at least make some sort of effort to refrain from turning it into Pent's Anti-Religion Proselytizing Thread by page three. Just because your agenda is hanging out doesn't mean you have to rub it on everything.
Will do Roger, when I feel like discussing it again.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 05:41:38 PM
I can only hope that next time a discussion concerning religion comes up, you'll at least make some sort of effort to refrain from turning it into Pent's Anti-Religion Proselytizing Thread by page three. Just because your agenda is hanging out doesn't mean you have to rub it on everything.
You got it. When it comes to religion, I guess I'm kinda like roger when a Magique thread happens - like a rottweiler with a a new chew toy. No worries, tho. When I say it's over, it's over.
Thanks. I appreciate it. I don't mind the points in a thread being rebutted, but within the scope of the debate.
Also, Junkenstein, will watch the video later.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 05:57:45 PM
Also, Junkenstein, will watch the video later.
You won't regret it, it's excellent. Challenging, but excellent. His essay is also excellent, but I haven't been able to find it online; it's in this book, which you, as a biologist, would probably thoroughly enjoy, and you can probably find a copy cheap online or locally: http://www.amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Testosterone-Predicament/dp/0684838915
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 01:07:15 PM
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 03:38:38 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 02:07:24 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 25, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 24, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 24, 2014, 12:13:47 PM
And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we as a society should be obligated to allow people to continue to wallow in their own ignorance and to hand it down generationally.
I am more comfortable with that than with deciding what we allow people to believe.
I think we should allow people to believe whatever they want. But I also think we should educate the FUCK out of them first, and then let them decide what nonsense to cling to.
Critical thinking skills and free, high-quality education should be part of any civilized society, absolutely. But you might be surprised to find that these don't act as a vaccine against religion. They do, however, tend to foster gentler, more open, less dogmatic forms of religion, though, such as Lutherans and Episcopalians.
I wouldn't be surprised at all, since I'm not a rabid dogmatic atheist. I would view trying to eradicate religion as a fool's errand, and probably a bit of a dick move.
However, I would be curious to see the effect on religion if science was stressed from an early age in a society's free high-quality education with an emphasis on critical thinking. I don't know enough about the educational systems of other countries to know if such a society exists currently.
I'm getting enough of a high quality education in the sciences that MIT reps are coming in to say that just because we're at community college doesn't mean that they won't let our credits transfer, and quite the opposite. Our science courses are apparently, in their own words, rigorous enough that we might want to reconsider going onto a 4 year state college. I won't for financial reasons. But my point here is that I'm going into a field that traditionally evaporates a person's belief in a higher power (physics and biology specialists tend to be more atheistic than chemists and engineers), and while it has helped to evaporate my understanding of immortality, it has paradoxically only served to reinforce my belief in some sort of higher power. From a rational perspective, I suspect that that is just how my brain is wired. But biology, while for some is a faith-killer, has been a reinforcing agent that merely kills specific doctrines about God.
yeah, but I'm talking about if you had started sciencing when you were 3. Your anecdote, while appreciated and informative to be sure, isn't really relevant to what I was saying.
And to address this point, there are hypotheses out there that religiosity has a genetic component. Further, I attended Catholic schools from the ages 5 to 12. They encouraged sciencing. Indeed, between those ages I wanted to be a scientist. The only interruption in that was the approximately 18 years when I wanted to be a professional musician. Nuns don't teach Intelligent Design, they teach Evolution, because they know that Evolution is a fact. Same thing with the Big Bang. It's absurd to say that neither of them are fact. Catholics still exist, somehow, even though there are stories in the Bible are patent bullshit. Ok, so it's not from age 3, but I don't think that those 2 years are that critical to religiosity to negate the point.
Oh, and you might enjoy this article, which I believe is relevant to the OP: http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/11/3389411/degrasse-tyson-religion/
Like Tyson, I consider myself an agnostic, for the reason that when you have a condition for which no test can be devised, it makes no sense to me, personally, to arrive at a conclusion about that condition.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 05:57:45 PM
Also, Junkenstein, will watch the video later.
You won't regret it, it's excellent. Challenging, but excellent. His essay is also excellent, but I haven't been able to find it online; it's in this book, which you, as a biologist, would probably thoroughly enjoy, and you can probably find a copy cheap online or locally: http://www.amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Testosterone-Predicament/dp/0684838915
Tabbed that as well.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 06:10:42 PM
Oh, and you might enjoy this article, which I believe is relevant to the OP: http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/11/3389411/degrasse-tyson-religion/
Like Tyson, I consider myself an agnostic, for the reason that when you have a condition for which no test can be devised, it makes no sense to me, personally, to arrive at a conclusion about that condition.
Great article. I think one of the most interesting things that NDT has said on the matter is that he doesn't have the time or the energy for promoting non-belief. It doesn't interest him. Whether God exists or not is entirely irrelevant to him. He just flat out doesn't care if there is one or not. And quite honestly I think my pantheism is due to having been exposed to Sagan's Cosmos as a kid. Even though he basically points out that theism is an unscientific proposition (my sun god is a different sun god than your sun god. One of them has to not exist. If one doesn't exist, why not both? You know, unless you're a Wiccan and its all the same to them one way or the other), there's some sort of spiritual awe at reality that comes through. You can tell the dude was a dreamer. And I think NDT is doing a fine job filling those very large shoes.
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
I know. I'm deriving something different from it that Sagan might.
ETA: though, I wouldn't define it as supernatural. That implies that what I'm thinking of is somehow separate from it. Transcendent deity makes no sense in a pantheistic framework.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 06:10:42 PM
Oh, and you might enjoy this article, which I believe is relevant to the OP: http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/11/3389411/degrasse-tyson-religion/
Like Tyson, I consider myself an agnostic, for the reason that when you have a condition for which no test can be devised, it makes no sense to me, personally, to arrive at a conclusion about that condition.
Great article. I think one of the most interesting things that NDT has said on the matter is that he doesn't have the time or the energy for promoting non-belief. It doesn't interest him. Whether God exists or not is entirely irrelevant to him. He just flat out doesn't care if there is one or not.
That kind of sums up my position.
I do enjoy hearing other people's takes on Divinity, though.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 06:10:42 PM
Oh, and you might enjoy this article, which I believe is relevant to the OP: http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/11/3389411/degrasse-tyson-religion/
Like Tyson, I consider myself an agnostic, for the reason that when you have a condition for which no test can be devised, it makes no sense to me, personally, to arrive at a conclusion about that condition.
Great article. I think one of the most interesting things that NDT has said on the matter is that he doesn't have the time or the energy for promoting non-belief. It doesn't interest him. Whether God exists or not is entirely irrelevant to him. He just flat out doesn't care if there is one or not.
That kind of sums up my position.
I do enjoy hearing other people's takes on Divinity, though.
I'm still trying to work out the idea myself. I just have this sense that reality itself is God, and the laws of physics are its commandments, and that the meaning of life, if there is any, is that reality can observe itself. Which brings us back to the original point of this thread. Rejection of science for religious reasons is heresy.
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: (Doktor (Nephew Twiddleton (Twid)) Blight) on April 25, 2014, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 06:10:42 PM
Oh, and you might enjoy this article, which I believe is relevant to the OP: http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/11/3389411/degrasse-tyson-religion/
Like Tyson, I consider myself an agnostic, for the reason that when you have a condition for which no test can be devised, it makes no sense to me, personally, to arrive at a conclusion about that condition.
Great article. I think one of the most interesting things that NDT has said on the matter is that he doesn't have the time or the energy for promoting non-belief. It doesn't interest him. Whether God exists or not is entirely irrelevant to him. He just flat out doesn't care if there is one or not.
That kind of sums up my position.
I do enjoy hearing other people's takes on Divinity, though.
I'm still trying to work out the idea myself. I just have this sense that reality itself is God, and the laws of physics are its commandments, and that the meaning of life, if there is any, is that reality can observe itself. Which brings us back to the original point of this thread. Rejection of science for religious reasons is heresy.
I like that.
Yes, well, this all went rather predictably. Again.
That's OK, I'm no dummy. If every time this discussion pops up my two cents are badly misinterpreted I can only conclude that I'm not doing an effective job of communicating. But it only takes getting kicked in the teeth, like, 15 or 20 times before I learn my lesson.
Twid, thanks for taking me at face value and actually having a dialogue about it. I kind of enjoy talking about this stuff with you.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 26, 2014, 02:49:26 AM
Yes, well, this all went rather predictably. Again.
That's OK, I'm no dummy. If every time this discussion pops up my two cents are badly misinterpreted I can only conclude that I'm not doing an effective job of communicating. But it only takes getting kicked in the teeth, like, 15 or 20 times before I learn my lesson.
Twid, thanks for taking me at face value and actually having a dialogue about it. I kind of enjoy talking about this stuff with you.
We can all continue to discuss it. I like doing it too, because it helps me define what it is that I'm looking for. I mean, in continuing to troll Yahoo News comments section, some kid was kidnapped and escaped because he sang the same Gospel song over and over for 3 hours straight until his abductor got sick of it and just dropped him off in some random neighborhood. Predictably, the Jesus freaks were all, "The Lord heard his praise and smiled upon him" or "The devil's minions can't stand to hear praise music."
First off, I could be the fucking Pope and if some kid annoyed me for 3 hours straight with religious music I'd want to get rid of him too.
Secondly, it could have been Mary Had a Little Lamb.
Thirdly, the kidnapper could just has well have killed him instead, and we'd never know about the Gospel music.
Fourthly, plenty of kidnapping/rape/murder victims cry out to their God. He doesn't help them.
Fifthly, that means it's unreproducible.
Sixthly, that means that God either favored this kid and not all the other people that begged him to help, or God just doesn't bother in that sort of thing because clockmaker deity, or can't speak English or something else, anything else other than omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent all-loving deity that is able to intervene in horrible situations. If you ask him hard enough and really really believe in it (sounds pretty Wiccan, actually).
Saying that God helped him is absurd. In fact, it's offensive. And I pushed it to the point where I got the whole retarded who am I to question God's will? Um. Human. Just because he's the boss doesn't mean that he shouldn't explain his illogical inconsistency in the prayer answering department. If God answers prayers, he's limited in some fashion. Or he's the devil. I basically implied to this one Baptist that he's a Satanist and doesn't even realize it. So God, if it exists, and for the sake of this thread, we'll work from the assumption that it does, it means that there is something else that it has in mind, and that the world by its very nature and purpose must be impartial in its indifference to our desires and begging.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
For me, screw supernatural awe. I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead. Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me. Plenty of time for that other stuff later.
...That's one way to bring the shut up... Show them that their God is the Devil.
Me gusta.
Also, you gusta'd this not too long ago, ECH. And it's an excellent point:
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/dracolupus/Plan_zps76d09fcd.jpg)
From the pantheistic perspective, do I have a plan for my intestinal flora, the microbes taking a dump in my eyes, or the prokaryotes that out number my cells in pure numbers and I only win out of pure mass? Nope. I know that they're there. I don't care about them, or even my individual cells, on an individual level. It would be impossible for me. I can get a group of neurons that annoy my totality for something in particular, like, I don't know eat this instead of that even though it's more expensive and less nutritious but tastes the shit, and I can either reward those neurons or patiently explain to them that it's not in our collective best interest to do that. But I'm not talking to individual neurons, and individual neurons aren't able to effectively communicate with me. I'm a collective. They are irrelevant to me as individuals. I don't have to like that, but I'm limited. That's an interesting question. What's it like to be a single neuron?
It seems like a ridiculous question, but that's analogous to how I consider God at this particular point in my life. We're the individual cells and microbes, or maybe even less than that. Maybe we're nucleotides. Collectively, we can learn something about ourselves, we can change things, but as individuals we're pretty meaningless to the whole. So what does the neuron feel? Are the neurons that are contributing to this particular thought in my brain the atheists and pantheists of my brain cells? It probably is a meaningless question for neurons, because they contain one piece of information and aren't capable of independent thought. But you can kinda see what I'm thinking here and why it is analogous.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 03:43:56 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
For me, screw supernatural awe. I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead. Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me. Plenty of time for that other stuff later.
I like the supernatural awe in this life, but again, I hate that word supernatural. If something exists above nature, it can't exist. Supernatural is a meaningless word. Something exists or it does not exist. Nothing can exist outside of everything.
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
The Fermi Paradox (http://the%20fermi%20paradox) Charlie Stross has a good take on this in Accelerando. In a nutshell, it's all to do with bandwidth over distance, the further you go from your center, the slower communication becomes so the expansion of any civilisation advanced enough to convert to computronium would hit a finite bandwidth wall, that functions almost like a gravity well, effectively keeping them local.
One of the other answers is that for any technological civilisation, on a long enough timeline, wiping themselves out is inevitable :horrormirth:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2014, 08:08:32 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
The Fermi Paradox (http://the%20fermi%20paradox) Charlie Stross has a good take on this in Accelerando. In a nutshell, it's all to do with bandwidth over distance, the further you go from your center, the slower communication becomes so the expansion of any civilisation advanced enough to convert to computronium would hit a finite bandwidth wall, that functions almost like a gravity well, effectively keeping them local.
One of the other answers is that for any technological civilisation, on a long enough timeline, wiping themselves out is inevitable :horrormirth:
Well, part of the problem there, from the biological perspective, is that it really is all just random. The mutations that led us here were all entirely well timed accidents. We've been technological for about the arguably x amount of years but it's really taken off in the past 4000-5000. Our technology has actually been asymptotic since then. We just haven't quite hit that "approaches the y axis" bit yet. Thing is. I'm not convinced that we will wipe ourselves out. It's unreasonable to assume that even with the Fermi Paradox. Life's kinda asymptotic too. life forms were not terribly interesting from our macroscopic perspective until the last half billion years. We're eukaryotes. We're going to have a eukaryotic perspective. But this planet was nothing more than a glorified agar dish for most of its existence. Muliticellular life is comparatively recent. Land life even more so.
To further explain the point-
the Solar System has been around for about a third of the universe's existence. Fine and dandy life could have arisen before then.
Well, no, hang on. We have to start seeding the galaxy with enough iron and what not to even get to that question. How long does that take? To get enough heavy stuff out there and clump it together with a well placed supernova? To get the right sized rock the right sized distance from its star? I don't doubt at all that there are aliens. I think that we must start seriously asking ourselves the question if the reason that we have not seen any evidence of a technological extraterrestrial species, is because... well...
We might be the first. Not even just in this galaxy, but, ever. Someone has to be. The heavens might be silent, because we are the biggest game in town.
Terrifying thought, isn't it?
There's also the not insignificant atmospheric opacity effect which is why I said, why would aliens use radio?
Do you know why we use radio?
It's for the same reason that we can only see light within the visible spectrum. Radiowaves are obviously a form of light, as are gamma rays and what not. The Earth's atmosphere is opaque to all forms of light except for those that fall with in the visual spectrum, averaged out across all life forms, and radiowaves. That's another proof of evolution from common ancestor. All light sensitive life is sensitive to the same narrow band of electromagnetic wavelengths roughly equivalent to the visual range for humans. Again, the sky would be black at noon at other wavelengths.
That's all due to the gasses in our atmosphere, and how they scatter light. Maybe the heavens are silent because what they consider radiowaves doesn't sync up with us. Maybe their atmospheres are opaque to our radiowaves and vice versa.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 08:43:53 AM
To further explain the point-
the Solar System has been around for about a third of the universe's existence. Fine and dandy life could have arisen before then.
Well, no, hang on. We have to start seeding the galaxy with enough iron and what not to even get to that question. How long does that take? To get enough heavy stuff out there and clump it together with a well placed supernova? To get the right sized rock the right sized distance from its star? I don't doubt at all that there are aliens. I think that we must start seriously asking ourselves the question if the reason that we have not seen any evidence of a technological extraterrestrial species, is because... well...
We might be the first. Not even just in this galaxy, but, ever. Someone has to be. The heavens might be silent, because we are the biggest game in town.
Terrifying thought, isn't it?
Doesn't terrify me in the slightest. TBH, I think it'd be kinda cool if that turned out to be the case but I don't think that's as likely. I can accept the we might be the only one in this particular (assuming finite) universe, Maybe the size of the finite universe makes the probability of only one or two consciousnesses developing most likely. However, what if the multiverse is infinite? That would mean there were a fuckton (metric) of other universes out there supporting as many as half a dozen disparate consciousnesses in some cases?
Contacting ET is something I would think was awesome as fuck, same as the next guy but, whether it actually happens or not, I'm kinda ambivalent about. If we never find a race of aliens, it's no skin off my nose.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2014, 10:09:35 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 08:43:53 AM
To further explain the point-
the Solar System has been around for about a third of the universe's existence. Fine and dandy life could have arisen before then.
Well, no, hang on. We have to start seeding the galaxy with enough iron and what not to even get to that question. How long does that take? To get enough heavy stuff out there and clump it together with a well placed supernova? To get the right sized rock the right sized distance from its star? I don't doubt at all that there are aliens. I think that we must start seriously asking ourselves the question if the reason that we have not seen any evidence of a technological extraterrestrial species, is because... well...
We might be the first. Not even just in this galaxy, but, ever. Someone has to be. The heavens might be silent, because we are the biggest game in town.
Terrifying thought, isn't it?
Doesn't terrify me in the slightest. TBH, I think it'd be kinda cool if that turned out to be the case but I don't think that's as likely. I can accept the we might be the only one in this particular (assuming finite) universe, Maybe the size of the finite universe makes the probability of only one or two consciousnesses developing most likely. However, what if the multiverse is infinite? That would mean there were a fuckton (metric) of other universes out there supporting as many as half a dozen disparate consciousnesses in some cases?
Contacting ET is something I would think was awesome as fuck, same as the next guy but, whether it actually happens or not, I'm kinda ambivalent about. If we never find a race of aliens, it's no skin off my nose.
http://www.space.com/24496-universe-alien-life-habitability-big-bang.html (http://www.space.com/24496-universe-alien-life-habitability-big-bang.html)
This theory, if true, implies that we may be one of the last.
Quote from: Regret on April 26, 2014, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 26, 2014, 10:09:35 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 08:43:53 AM
To further explain the point-
the Solar System has been around for about a third of the universe's existence. Fine and dandy life could have arisen before then.
Well, no, hang on. We have to start seeding the galaxy with enough iron and what not to even get to that question. How long does that take? To get enough heavy stuff out there and clump it together with a well placed supernova? To get the right sized rock the right sized distance from its star? I don't doubt at all that there are aliens. I think that we must start seriously asking ourselves the question if the reason that we have not seen any evidence of a technological extraterrestrial species, is because... well...
We might be the first. Not even just in this galaxy, but, ever. Someone has to be. The heavens might be silent, because we are the biggest game in town.
Terrifying thought, isn't it?
Doesn't terrify me in the slightest. TBH, I think it'd be kinda cool if that turned out to be the case but I don't think that's as likely. I can accept the we might be the only one in this particular (assuming finite) universe, Maybe the size of the finite universe makes the probability of only one or two consciousnesses developing most likely. However, what if the multiverse is infinite? That would mean there were a fuckton (metric) of other universes out there supporting as many as half a dozen disparate consciousnesses in some cases?
Contacting ET is something I would think was awesome as fuck, same as the next guy but, whether it actually happens or not, I'm kinda ambivalent about. If we never find a race of aliens, it's no skin off my nose.
http://www.space.com/24496-universe-alien-life-habitability-big-bang.html (http://www.space.com/24496-universe-alien-life-habitability-big-bang.html)
This theory, if true, implies that we may be one of the last.
I'm not sure if I buy that, main reason being the scarcity of elements necessary for life.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 05:55:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 03:43:56 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
For me, screw supernatural awe. I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead. Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me. Plenty of time for that other stuff later.
I like the supernatural awe in this life, but again, I hate that word supernatural. If something exists above nature, it can't exist. Supernatural is a meaningless word. Something exists or it does not exist. Nothing can exist outside of everything.
To my mind, that's the very definition of God. If he has to work inside the structure, it's not a god an in fact would be just a very powerful natural critter of some sort.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 05:55:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 03:43:56 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
For me, screw supernatural awe. I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead. Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me. Plenty of time for that other stuff later.
I like the supernatural awe in this life, but again, I hate that word supernatural. If something exists above nature, it can't exist. Supernatural is a meaningless word. Something exists or it does not exist. Nothing can exist outside of everything.
To my mind, that's the very definition of God. If he has to work inside the structure, it's not a god an in fact would be just a very powerful natural critter of some sort.
And I think that's where individual variation in the definition of "God" comes into play. To me, if there is a God, or Gods, they are the final product of emergence, at a level of complexity that we are incapable of measuring.
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
:?
Did I miss some science news, or what?
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 26, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
:?
Did I miss some science news, or what?
No, this is old news, origin of life stuff.
I'd just like to mention that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive terms. Carry on.
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 11:55:36 PM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 26, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
:?
Did I miss some science news, or what?
No, this is old news, origin of life stuff.
That's what I thought, I just don't see what you're getting at.
Twid seemed to be marveling at the apparent origin of all life on Earth as far as it can be traced back, and you seemed to be pushing for a subtler distinction between a species and an individual organism.
I'm just curious as to where exactly Twid is wrong, since what he's saying fits with what I remember from my biology courses.
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 27, 2014, 02:29:12 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 11:55:36 PM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 26, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
:?
Did I miss some science news, or what?
No, this is old news, origin of life stuff.
That's what I thought, I just don't see what you're getting at.
Twid seemed to be marveling at the apparent origin of all life on Earth as far as it can be traced back, and you seemed to be pushing for a subtler distinction between a species and an individual organism.
I'm just curious as to where exactly Twid is wrong, since what he's saying fits with what I remember from my biology courses.
Splitting hairs; I could have misread him but it sounded like he was saying "a single individual prokaryote", rather than "a species of prokaryotes". It's not really important though, and if it was I'm sure Twid would say something.
Quote from: Nigel on April 27, 2014, 02:40:59 AM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 27, 2014, 02:29:12 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 11:55:36 PM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 26, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
:?
Did I miss some science news, or what?
No, this is old news, origin of life stuff.
That's what I thought, I just don't see what you're getting at.
Twid seemed to be marveling at the apparent origin of all life on Earth as far as it can be traced back, and you seemed to be pushing for a subtler distinction between a species and an individual organism.
I'm just curious as to where exactly Twid is wrong, since what he's saying fits with what I remember from my biology courses.
Splitting hairs; I could have misread him but it sounded like he was saying "a single individual prokaryote", rather than "a species of prokaryotes". It's not really important though, and if it was I'm sure Twid would say something.
Yeah, not really that important. I was referring to an individual organism as a point of origin- the ancestral species had to descend from something in order to be a species. However, that may be the only branch on the tree of life that survived. Other species may have emerged independently on Earth and died out pretty quickly, leaving only one lineage in the present day.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 27, 2014, 02:48:33 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 27, 2014, 02:40:59 AM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 27, 2014, 02:29:12 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 11:55:36 PM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 26, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
:?
Did I miss some science news, or what?
No, this is old news, origin of life stuff.
That's what I thought, I just don't see what you're getting at.
Twid seemed to be marveling at the apparent origin of all life on Earth as far as it can be traced back, and you seemed to be pushing for a subtler distinction between a species and an individual organism.
I'm just curious as to where exactly Twid is wrong, since what he's saying fits with what I remember from my biology courses.
Splitting hairs; I could have misread him but it sounded like he was saying "a single individual prokaryote", rather than "a species of prokaryotes". It's not really important though, and if it was I'm sure Twid would say something.
Yeah, not really that important. I was referring to an individual organism as a point of origin- the ancestral species had to descend from something in order to be a species. However, that may be the only branch on the tree of life that survived. Other species may have emerged independently on Earth and died out pretty quickly, leaving only one lineage in the present day.
Well, if you get distant enough from the point of origin there has to be at least one shared ancestor, but that doesn't mean that an identified shared ancestor is the sole ancestor, if that makes sense. If we had a whole bunch of amino acids coming together and at some point those amino acids formed into a bunch of suspiciously similar RNA strands and those strands, sharing as they did a particular set of conditions, started replicating themselves and eventually built a bunch of proteins and formed the most rudimentary cells, there is no particular reason to think that there was not a pretty generous exchange of code amongst them all, especially looking at the behavior of current-day bacteria. So it may not even be so much that life as we know it is the descendant of a single species of prokaryote, as that it is a benign confluence of many.
My favorite hypothesis about how eukaryotes came to be is that after the bacteria and archaea split, at some point a branch of bacteria and a branch of archaea found each other, and the archaea engulfed the bacteria, which somehow figured out how (as bacteria are pretty damn good at doing) to exist symbiotically within the archaea, eventually fusing DNA to form the nucleus as we know it today. And then engulfing some other shit too, for shits and giggles, giving us mitochondria and plants chloroplasts.
Quote from: Nigel on April 27, 2014, 02:57:10 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 27, 2014, 02:48:33 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 27, 2014, 02:40:59 AM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 27, 2014, 02:29:12 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 11:55:36 PM
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 26, 2014, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 06:45:01 AM
Another thing that drives me a bit nuts, in a frustrated sort of way, is that we only have contact with one inhabited planet. We know that we're not alone, and we aren't hearing anything. Hearing something would have significant impact on my spiritual perspective. We don't know why the universe is so quiet. Maybe they don't use radio. Maybe that's a weird quirk of ours. Maybe eukaryotic, complex life is fucking aberrant. Maybe technological life even more so.
One of the things that really makes me think, is that all life on Earth is descended from the same common ancestor. Score one for evolution. That was never in question. Step back for a sec. Why did life only emerge once? Why is all life on Earth descended, apparently, from one single fluke organism? It's not even a question of complex intelligent life emerging twice in the course of 4 billion years, it's that it all comes from one single place. One common ancestor. One lonely, unique, prokaryote that just happened to survive.
Not exactly. A common ancestor in this context means a common ancestor species, not a single bacteria.
:?
Did I miss some science news, or what?
No, this is old news, origin of life stuff.
That's what I thought, I just don't see what you're getting at.
Twid seemed to be marveling at the apparent origin of all life on Earth as far as it can be traced back, and you seemed to be pushing for a subtler distinction between a species and an individual organism.
I'm just curious as to where exactly Twid is wrong, since what he's saying fits with what I remember from my biology courses.
Splitting hairs; I could have misread him but it sounded like he was saying "a single individual prokaryote", rather than "a species of prokaryotes". It's not really important though, and if it was I'm sure Twid would say something.
Yeah, not really that important. I was referring to an individual organism as a point of origin- the ancestral species had to descend from something in order to be a species. However, that may be the only branch on the tree of life that survived. Other species may have emerged independently on Earth and died out pretty quickly, leaving only one lineage in the present day.
Well, if you get distant enough from the point of origin there has to be at least one shared ancestor, but that doesn't mean that an identified shared ancestor is the sole ancestor, if that makes sense. If we had a whole bunch of amino acids coming together and at some point those amino acids formed into a bunch of suspiciously similar RNA strands and those strands, sharing as they did a particular set of conditions, started replicating themselves and eventually built a bunch of proteins and formed the most rudimentary cells, there is no particular reason to think that there was not a pretty generous exchange of code amongst them all, especially looking at the behavior of current-day bacteria. So it may not even be so much that life as we know it is the descendant of a single species of prokaryote, as that it is a benign confluence of many.
Right on. That makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for elaborating, you two.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 05:55:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 03:43:56 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
For me, screw supernatural awe. I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead. Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me. Plenty of time for that other stuff later.
I like the supernatural awe in this life, but again, I hate that word supernatural. If something exists above nature, it can't exist. Supernatural is a meaningless word. Something exists or it does not exist. Nothing can exist outside of everything.
To my mind, that's the very definition of God. If he has to work inside the structure, it's not a god an in fact would be just a very powerful natural critter of some sort.
What is god if it isn't a powerful critter of
some nature? Turtles all the way up, too? Is god bound by some greater framework?
Serious question, because, for me at least, it opens up pretty much any possibility of intellect from a dragonfly to an omniscient, benevolent, scientist/engineer hyper-intelligence and all points in between.
I think that one thing you might be getting hung up on in these discussions is that you seem to insist on anthropomorphizing any concept of "god".
A dragonfly is anthropomorphising? An anthropomorphic being is still one of the infinite possibilities. As is some thing that didn't create the universe or multiverse consciously, like the level of abstraction between us and our cells. Maybe the universe is the equivalent of a cell in the consciousness substrate of god.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 27, 2014, 01:11:03 PM
I think that one thing you might be getting hung up on in these discussions is that you seem to insist on anthropomorphizing any concept of "god".
This is an excellent point. I can't actually picture God as anthropomorphic. I can't picture it at all. Doing so would limit it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 27, 2014, 09:29:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 26, 2014, 05:55:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2014, 03:43:56 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 25, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.
For some people.
For me, screw supernatural awe. I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead. Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me. Plenty of time for that other stuff later.
I like the supernatural awe in this life, but again, I hate that word supernatural. If something exists above nature, it can't exist. Supernatural is a meaningless word. Something exists or it does not exist. Nothing can exist outside of everything.
To my mind, that's the very definition of God. If he has to work inside the structure, it's not a god an in fact would be just a very powerful natural critter of some sort.
What is god if it isn't a powerful critter of some nature? Turtles all the way up, too? Is god bound by some greater framework?
Serious question, because, for me at least, it opens up pretty much any possibility of intellect from a dragonfly to an omniscient, benevolent, scientist/engineer hyper-intelligence and all points in between.
Roger and I actually discussed the origin of this universe when he was here. It was a pick up on a conversation about black holes leading to big bangs, or more importantly, since it applies to us, the Big Bang being the result of a black hole in another universe. So yes, it might be turtles (turtles being code for black holes) all the way up. It gets really fucking big for our brains though at this point. Where does it all begin? Where does this infinite amount of matter to create infinite amounts of black holes come from?
Huh. My pantheistic model must now include the possibility of multiverses. Which means that this universe is a god, whereas there is a God. Both are correct, but.... hmmmm.....
I'd like to point out at this point that my specialty is white man history and Terran biology....
One interesting thing though-
If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.
We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 28, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
One interesting thing though-
If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.
We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.
I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps
don't have a god concept or that they
may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".
Quote from: MMIX on April 28, 2014, 08:51:42 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 28, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
One interesting thing though-
If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.
We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.
I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps don't have a god concept or that they may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".
What I mean is that on the surface, it seems that chimpanzees, from this behavior, seem to have some sort of ritual reverence for thunder. Or it could be a game or something. We don't know why they do it, they just do. Thing is, we can communicate with them a little, but not in complex abstract concepts. Religion and ritual are part of that area we can't talk to them about yet. They might do it because they think it's funny. They might do it because they think it pleases Chimpzor the Rolling One. They have the intelligence for religious behavior, sure. But just because they have the capacity, and it looks that way to us, doesn't mean that's what it is. Hell, they may even be doing it for some sort of experience that is uniquely chimp and something that
we would never be able to grasp, because our brains just aren't wire to understand it.
Burgers, with cheezus or not ...tangible only when seen and touched and eaten. Then, even the sight and touch and taste will differ for each.
Could be a hot dog too, not a burger.
/interrupted rambling
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on May 03, 2014, 01:37:16 AM
Quote from: MMIX on April 28, 2014, 08:51:42 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 28, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
One interesting thing though-
If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.
We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.
I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps don't have a god concept or that they may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".
What I mean is that on the surface, it seems that chimpanzees, from this behavior, seem to have some sort of ritual reverence for thunder. Or it could be a game or something. We don't know why they do it, they just do. Thing is, we can communicate with them a little, but not in complex abstract concepts. Religion and ritual are part of that area we can't talk to them about yet. They might do it because they think it's funny. They might do it because they think it pleases Chimpzor the Rolling One. They have the intelligence for religious behavior, sure. But just because they have the capacity, and it looks that way to us, doesn't mean that's what it is. Hell, they may even be doing it for some sort of experience that is uniquely chimp and something that we would never be able to grasp, because our brains just aren't wire to understand it.
This is one reason (among several) that I am not a big fan of Ramachandran, despite his admittedly groundbreaking work with neuroplasticity; he insists on this weird (to me) degree of human exceptionalism. I can't totally buy into any biologist who seriously proposes that human beings are in a category that is... well, exceptional.
Quite aside from him being a bit of a sexist egophile.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 03, 2014, 05:53:39 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on May 03, 2014, 01:37:16 AM
Quote from: MMIX on April 28, 2014, 08:51:42 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on April 28, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
One interesting thing though-
If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.
We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.
I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps don't have a god concept or that they may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".
What I mean is that on the surface, it seems that chimpanzees, from this behavior, seem to have some sort of ritual reverence for thunder. Or it could be a game or something. We don't know why they do it, they just do. Thing is, we can communicate with them a little, but not in complex abstract concepts. Religion and ritual are part of that area we can't talk to them about yet. They might do it because they think it's funny. They might do it because they think it pleases Chimpzor the Rolling One. They have the intelligence for religious behavior, sure. But just because they have the capacity, and it looks that way to us, doesn't mean that's what it is. Hell, they may even be doing it for some sort of experience that is uniquely chimp and something that we would never be able to grasp, because our brains just aren't wire to understand it.
This is one reason (among several) that I am not a big fan of Ramachandran, despite his admittedly groundbreaking work with neuroplasticity; he insists on this weird (to me) degree of human exceptionalism. I can't totally buy into any biologist who seriously proposes that human beings are in a category that is... well, exceptional.
Quite aside from him being a bit of a sexist egophile.
That's the thing about it, too. We can't know how unique our form of intelligence, or way of thinking or whatever, actually is until we can speak meaningfully about such things with other intelligences. I mean, until I wrote the quoted post, it never occurred to me that other intelligent species might have some aspects of intelligence that we would never recognize because we don't have it ourselves. I mean, on Earth at least. It's occurred to me before that civilized aliens might not understand something so obvious to us as music or clothing.
I think intelligence is capable of recognising other intelligence but ego is capable of blinkering this. Sure, if aliens don't have inbuilt sensory apparatus capable of capturing energy waves in the audible spectrum, they might miss music but, with a suitable level of technology, they'd be scanning the whole spectrum anyway, you'd reasonably expect their computers would pick up the patterns.
Look at it this way - if aliens default communication was via organs that produced and collected microwave energy, we'd "hear" it as soon as they got close enough.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 03, 2014, 06:26:12 AM
I think intelligence is capable of recognising other intelligence but ego is capable of blinkering this. Sure, if aliens don't have inbuilt sensory apparatus capable of capturing energy waves in the audible spectrum, they might miss music but, with a suitable level of technology, they'd be scanning the whole spectrum anyway, you'd reasonably expect their computers would pick up the patterns.
Look at it this way - if aliens default communication was via organs that produced and collected microwave energy, we'd "hear" it as soon as they got close enough.
I guess what I mean, is that they wouldn't understand why we do it, or how it's pleasing, even if they were able to hear it exactly as we do, because that was just part of how our brains evolved. And it's not like we could really communicate what it does for us to them because it's universally human. It's just something we've always done. They mightn't be able to tell the difference between what is generally considered an annoying song and what is generally considered a great song. To them it would just all be a "a pattern of sonic frequencies that humans create and react to."
Or, ok how about like this- it's not exactly the same but it's along the same line of not being able to communicate what something's like even if the language is mutually intelligible. One of my exes has no sense of smell. None. Whenever smell came up, I found it impossible to relate what something smelled like without relating it to how something else smelled. Which, while she understood the words for, had absolutely no meaning to her. She just had a general index of things smell good if x and smell bad if y. No concept of intensity either. She was always having me smell things beyond the reasonable bottle of milk or something, just to make sure.
I don't think you're talking about comunication as much as sharing. To communicate you need to establish a mode, then you need to establish a common pattern sequence. Think about what they're doing with dolphins. Okay dolphins are communicating using audible spectrum but they do it completely differently to us, by "farting" 3d models at each other which the recipient renders using the visual cortex. So we've used technology to work this out. So we have no way of explaining to a dolphin what it feels like to have legs but we can begin to communicate by working out which shapes mean what. Most importantly the dolphins seem to be into this, so they're cooperating as best they can. Eventually we'll work out a common sematic and then we can work on teaching them how we use sounds and they can teach us their language(s)