ITT I explain why the nation is so fucked up

[wufwugy]

[Lukie]

there are a lot of reasons this country is messed up

acknowledging that there are a lot of fat and stupid people is probably as good of a place as any.

[boost]

what exactly is going on with her fopa?

[wufwugy]

what exactly is going on with her fopa?

I dunno. We should send jyms in to find out

[Shotglass]

Somebody call blue bell ice cream...they're about to get sued because that 4,000,000,000 ice cream bars that she's eaten has made her fat and she just can't cope anymore but $40million in compensation from the company would def not make her worse.

[jyms]

lulz

[DropTheBanana]

Completely Off Subject:

What are those kind of key chains called? I've always called them "coach ropes", but I can never remember the actual name of them .

[kfaess]

I really don't understand how a person can get that fat. I really don't.

I mean, you have to just really not give a shit. If you see yourself gaining weight: eat less and exercise more.

Ricky Gervais on the subject
YouTube - Ricky Gervais on Fat People

[kfaess]

Also, is that a dig on the tea party?

[Shotglass]

That part about the airplane seats is funny as hell

[a500lbgorilla]

The Monkey Cage: You Want More Epistemic Closure? Global Warming (again) and Evolution

Also that you think America is "the nation" this is an insult to the greatest nation in the world - America.

[boost]

Completely Off Subject:

What are those kind of key chains called? I've always called them "coach ropes", but I can never remember the actual name of them .

Lanyard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kfaess]

rilla, not sure what you point is by posting that article?

[bikes]

[Penneywize]

LOL bikes. Yeah sorry, your country is kinda fucked up.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

people can be so gross

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

that Pearl Harbor stuff is so obviously racist... I wonder how many of them would think they are being racist tho?

[wufwugy]

Also, is that a dig on the tea party?

It's a dig on fundamentalists who rally and vote against every interest (including their own), excluding the plutocrat class, and in doing so they successfully drive the momentum of the country

[wufwugy]

Xenophobia, egocentrism, faux-patriotism, dis-empathy, entitlements....

[Ash256]

http://i.imgur.com/qnaMH.jpg

cunts

[surviva316]

What Happened In Japan Is a Way Of Life

lmao

[a500lbgorilla]

rilla, not sure what you point is by posting that article?

That highly educated conservatives are only nominally more or less likely to accept evolution (both micro and macro, as if they were different) and global warming (man made climate change) than poorly educated conservatives. There is a huge divide in acceptance of fact between well educated liberals and conservatives and this is uniquely american.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also, this fun sort of person who can know as fact what is almost certainly not fact.

YouTube - AtheistPlanet2's Channel

YouTube - MichaelShermer's Channel

The above link to specific videos, though the titles would suggest I'm just linking to channels.

This sort of stuff is not uniquely american, but it betrays a weakness in us all with reference to understanding reality and knowing how to identify the best path to maneuver through it.

Even I fall for these sorts of things over certain discussions. I like to think I'm clever enough to identify a good idea, but my ability to convince myself of something which later turns out to be wrong is quite strong. And I get to vote as much as the rest of America.

Being ignorant of how easy it is to be wrong makes you more confident that you're right.

[a500lbgorilla]

YouTube - The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

That we only get two choices who inherently only represent a small portion of the people while everyone else is forced to sacrifice their political ideals in one direction or the other.

Our nation seems to resemble entropy, so far in when we manage to align enough people to pull the country in generally one direction, one cycle later, we're generally pulling in another. The only forces which seem to know how to trend this chaos trend it in their favor.

[Smith]

The world runs on a rigged money system. Do your research. Educate yourself

That's how individuals, governments, and companies can be all broke at the same time!!!

Everything else is divide and control by the powers that be. (political issues, social issues, economic issues etc...)

"Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws"
-Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild

[Roid_Rage]

[wufwugy]

excellent first past the post video rilla

[surviva316]

The world runs on a rigged money system. Do your research. Educate yourself

That's how individuals, governments, and companies can be all broke at the same time!!!

Everything else is divide and control by the powers that be. (political issues, social issues, economic issues etc...)

"Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws"
-Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild

you referring to the fed?

if so, i know the zeitgeist movie thing talked about this, and the factual basis of it got mixed reviews. i plead ignorance. what's your verdict gambling strangers of the interwebz?!?!

[wufwugy]

you referring to the fed?

if so, i know the zeitgeist movie thing talked about this, and the factual basis of it got mixed reviews. i plead ignorance. what's your verdict gambling strangers of the interwebz?!?!

Yeah he clearly comes from the Zeitgeist opinion

Stuff is a mixed bag. It's partially correct, the "debunkings" are partially correct, and there's a whole lot of simply unknowns and theory

It's not currently possible to attempt a comprehensive analysis/critique of the monetary/economic system without invoking a crapload of arguably false positions.

A lot of the basics ideas in Zeitgeist are correct though. Like the distorted incentives of monetarism without moralism.

[Smith]

There is a vast amount of information out there. Zeitgeist is just a tip to get people to start questioning and start learning for themselves.

I've learned so much the last seven years, and its very very fucked up and frightening. You have to do a lot of learning (thinking) from good sources though. Then you can come up with what makes most logical sense to yourself.

If somebody could give me a logical reason why individuals, governments, and companies are all broke at the same time. I would really love to hear it.


Money as Debt
YouTube - Money As Debt (1 of 5)

Money Masters
YouTube - The Money Masters (Part 1 of 22)

[wufwugy]

YouTube - AtheistPlanet2's Channel

What a stupid stupid cunt

In one breath she says that scientists don't know anything then in the next breath says that scientists don't know how to dumb their stuff down so normal people understand it

[a500lbgorilla]

What a stupid stupid cunt

In one breath she says that scientists don't know anything then in the next breath says that scientists don't know how to dumb their stuff down so normal people understand it

What is amazing is how she handles herself, the swiftness with which she finds another question or laughs off a premise, the hidden complexity of each question as well, and how well armed she is through and through. If someone like her were to wish to discuss with me the merits of nuclear power versus other modes of power generation, I'm sure I would be either dumbfounded or agreeing with them at the end.

[Ash256]

If somebody could give me a logical reason why individuals, governments, and companies are all broke at the same time. I would really love to hear it.

banks lend less due to shrinkage of balance sheets -> banks lend less to businesses -> businesses go bust -> people get laid off -> people and businesses pay less tax -> the government's tax income declines -> public sector workers get laid off -> everyone pumps less money into businesses -> businesses search for loans -> banks lend less due to shrinkage of balance sheets

[wufwugy]

Not sure you could say everybody's broke anyways. It only appears that people are broke since most of it is concentrated at the top. A few trillion just sitting around doing nothing, and many trillions being flushed down the toilets

Under an Eisenhower tax code, the US would have a substantially more wealthy median citizen than ever before. There's more wealth than ever, it's just that the sociopaths who have it are busy convincing the proletariat to fight over the scraps

[drmcboy]

good post but needs some democrat mocking to be complete. roe was the best idea both parties ever had.

[Smith]

banks lend less due to shrinkage of balance sheets -> banks lend less to businesses -> businesses go bust -> people get laid off -> people and businesses pay less tax -> the government's tax income declines -> public sector workers get laid off -> everyone pumps less money into businesses -> businesses search for loans -> banks lend less due to shrinkage of balance sheets

Yes there is a cascading affect, but that doesn't get to the root of the issue. Also that's a simplistic way of looking at it without seeing all the variables. Unfortunately there is a lot more to it then that.

Taxing the rich at 90% is hardly the answer either. Especially considering where that tax money actually goes, and where it gets appropriated to. An Eisenhower view is completely unfair to rich people. I can't believe I just said that.... lol

The real problem is Usury. The usury of the government, and its people. Now it's instituted world wide through the World Bank, and IMF. Not to mention the problem with US Treasuries, and the link of US Dollars to Oil. That's another whole can of worms too.

That reminds me that Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a good book on how foreign governments are taken down, and enslaved to this monetary system.

[boost]

What is amazing is how she handles herself, the swiftness with which she finds another question or laughs off a premise, the hidden complexity of each question as well, and how well armed she is through and through. If someone like her were to wish to discuss with me the merits of nuclear power versus other modes of power generation, I'm sure I would be either dumbfounded or agreeing with them at the end.

It was even more amazing that Dawkins didnt choke the shit out of her. I had to stop watching after the 3rd section because I was afraid I'd punch my monitor when the cameraman panned to her.

[Luco]

That FB pearl harbour thing makes me throw up in my mouth. Why dont those retarded fuck bags google 'hiroshima nagasaki death count' before they start talking about karma. Do they even know why the Japanese attacked the US in the first place? (for the curious, google Japan Trade Embargo 1941)

Pearl Harbour death toll - 2,300 ish

Earthquake / tsunami death toll - 2,800 and rising

Atomic bombs on hiroshima / nagasaki (completely ignoring the 6 months of American blanket bombing of Japan before the nuclear attacks, that killed hundreds of thousands in their own right) - 250,000 minimum

[Shotglass]

Let's see if I understand how America works lately...
If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.
If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock 'n' roll music or musician he liked.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family blames the tobacco company.
If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain you blame the school for poor sex education.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, you blame the bartender.
If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to shoot up with heroin was dirty, you blame the government for not providing clean ones.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you blame television.
If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame the gun manufacturer.
If a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill the pilots at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead, the mother of the deceased blames the airline.

I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is anymore. So if I die while my old, wrinkled ass is parked in front of this computer, I want you to blame Bill Gates, OK?

[wufwugy]

So much American Exceptionalism ITT

[Monty3038]

Let's see if I understand how America works lately...
If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.
If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock 'n' roll music or musician he liked.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family blames the tobacco company.
If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain you blame the school for poor sex education.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, you blame the bartender.
If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to shoot up with heroin was dirty, you blame the government for not providing clean ones.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you blame television.
If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame the gun manufacturer.
If a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill the pilots at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead, the mother of the deceased blames the airline.

I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is anymore. So if I die while my old, wrinkled ass is parked in front of this computer, I want you to blame Bill Gates, OK?

You now understand perfectly. And you also understand why the cost of every frickin thing is going up.

[Monty3038]

The world runs on a rigged money system. Do your research. Educate yourself

That's how individuals, governments, and companies can be all broke at the same time!!!

Everything else is divide and control by the powers that be. (political issues, social issues, economic issues etc...)

"Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws"
-Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild

I think that everything and everyone is broke all of the damn time because we all live beyond our means.

I make plenty of money to live a happy, successful life in the US presently, but am I satisfied with it... hell no, I'm an American damn it!

[a500lbgorilla]

I think that everything and everyone is broke all of the damn time because we all live beyond our means.

I make plenty of money to live a happy, successful life in the US presently, but am I satisfied with it... hell no, I'm an American damn it!

So it's all your fault? I should've known. You always seemed a bit commie to me.

Oh, wait, 2011... You always seemed a bit muslim to me.

[a500lbgorilla]

That FB pearl harbour thing makes me throw up in my mouth. Why dont those retarded fuck bags google 'hiroshima nagasaki death count' before they start talking about karma. Do they even know why the Japanese attacked the US in the first place? (for the curious, google Japan Trade Embargo 1941)

Pearl Harbour death toll - 2,300 ish

Earthquake / tsunami death toll - 2,800 and rising

Atomic bombs on hiroshima / nagasaki (completely ignoring the 6 months of American blanket bombing of Japan before the nuclear attacks, that killed hundreds of thousands in their own right) - 250,000 minimum

I think it's pretty clear that the earthquake was karma for Pearl Harbour and Nagasaki was karma for Hiroshima. Pretty open and shut case, imo.

[BennyLaRue]

Oh, wait, 2011... You always seemed a bit muslim to me.

You got there pretty quickly. Sounds to me like a muslim trying to overcompensate.

I'm on to you, Shiite.

[surviva316]

YouTube - AtheistPlanet2's Channel

finally got around to watching these. i couldn't think of a perfecter metaphor for the creationist/evolution divide than the part of the video where dawkins spends ten minutes saying "these fossils ARE at the smithsonian, why don't you go and look at them?" and the chick being like "nah, i've been there, they're totally not there. now i must question your agenda because you're getting frustrated and seem insecure with the evidence you have at hand. you shouldn't censor me like that."

BITCH I'M GETTING FRUSTRATED BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING STRAIGHT AT THE BONES THAT YOU SAY DON'T EXIST AND STILL CONTINUE TO SAY THEY DON'T EXIST! I'M INSECURE IN MY EVIDENCE BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING RIGHT AT IT AND AREN'T EVEN SAYING "that evidence is not sufficient" YOU'RE STRAIGHT UP SAYING THAT EVIDENCE ISN'T EVEN THERE!!!!

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

I think what she says about how 'philosophies built on the basis of the theory of evolution tend to treat human beings as material' is a powerful observation

that being said evolution ftw

[surviva316]

btw, Re: Wright claiming she was arrested just for praying near an abortion clinic: this perked my ears up so i decided to do some research into it. well it didn't take that much research because someone else had already compiled all the research into one handy dandy post:

A very interesting Richard Dawkins interview with a Christian right leader - JREF Forum

Cliffnotes: Her group (130 protesters) were arrested previously at the same clinic where Dr. George Tiller worked (controversial because a lot of late-term abortions were done there), and refused to pay a peace bond of $100,000 for damaging a ton of property, trespassing by climbing a wrought iron fence, knocking over an abortion rights rep, barracading the door, etc.

shortly thereafter, Dr Tiller is murdered. Shortly after THAT the judge imposes a restraining order on those from the previous protest to not do any demonstrations within 100 ft of the clinic. Shortly after THAT wright and 3 others are arrested within 100 ft of the clinic where they were ripping up the court injunction and praying (sounds innocent but you know their prayers prolly involved something along the lines of "forgive these sinning murderers, for they know not what they do").

they get sentenced to 6 months of prison and 500 dollar bond. it gets overruled by a federal judge

[surviva316]

cliffnotes of the cliffnotes: bitch violates restraining order and gets the sentence outlined in the restraining order. her sentence gets overturned in federal court and she has to pay $100 fine.

PERSECUTED FOR HER CHRISTIANITY OBVS!

[eugmac]

My favourite was quote from the racist FB thing:
"damn those krauts deserve to be hit by a earthquake tsunami for nuking pearl harbor."

[wufwugy]

I think what she says about how 'philosophies built on the basis of the theory of evolution tend to treat human beings as material' is a powerful observation

that being said evolution ftw

She doesn't know what that means, and doesn't realize it's not even a relevant observation. Materialism is demonstrably true, and materialistic-ism is an archaic and false idea.

Evolution treats us for who we are. On the contrary, superstitions are what tends to treat humans as disposable. As ALWAYS, there is no greater need than for monotheistic religionists to remove the log from their own eye before trying to find the splinter in others'

Evolution teaches us that even pedophiles are living, breathing, natural humans; we don't like what they do, it's bad stuff, and we can't tolerate their actions, but we don't vilify them; we try to solve the problems for a better world. On the other hand, xtianity teaches you to brainwash your own children that they're sinners in the eyes of Sky Daddy. Talk about treating people like "material". Maybe it's religionists who are afraid of evolution because if they accepted it then they'd have to stop being so xenophobic, racist, judgmental....

[surviva316]

to be fair, a lot of the FB post thing, once you get past the first like 15 or so, most of them are potential trolls (the one about the krauts included). especially the ones that are liek KARMA'S A BITCH HAHAHAHA!

[boost]

I think what she says about how 'philosophies built on the basis of the theory of evolution tend to treat human beings as material' is a powerful observation

You can use a knife to slice bread so you can make a delicious sandwich, or you can use it to stab an old lady in the eye. The knife is neither good nor bad, it's just a knife. The implications derived from the theory of evolution and how they are implemented have no bearing on whether the theory is good or bad much less whether it's false or fact.

[Halv]

You can also use a knife to make an old lady sandwich!

[a500lbgorilla]

Prove it.

[boost]

You can also use a knife to make an old lady sandwich!

A delicious old lady sandwich?

[Roid_Rage]

Is there any other kind?

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

I think she is getting at the same thing I'm getting at, which is that it seems that a lot of people these days seem comfortable putting a price on the lives of people they don't know and like. where she and I disagree is whether substituting religion for scientific theory would fully address that and other examples of the problem of over materialism. I'm not certain that organized religion is any better but your categorization of Christianity and religion in general wuf is inaccurate and personally insulting(as a christian). Not all religions encourage more negative human behaviors than positive ones, such as mine obv (Methodist, not Creationist. internet: I'm being sarcastic here).

the bigger question is what do we as individuals think is best for humanity? scientific progress, with the unforeseeable implications on human behavior, or happiness? In some instances happiness and progress are mutually exclusive. For the Creationists a moment of choice arises when it comes to the theory of evolution. Some people are talking about the Singularity, a moment in the future where artificial intelligence will exceed the power of our brains. At that point AI will be able to replicate any human behaviors, perhaps excluding emotions and complex abstractions re: religion and philosophy. That may sound fantastic since we wouldn't have to work anymore, but obviously this will create a major change in human purpose. How will humanity respond to this change? It's possible that a life where the primary activities are socializing and philosophizing would be worse than a life balanced with more suffering, depending on whose eyes you're looking through. Perhaps people not being 'distracted' by 'ordinary' pursuits such as a job would shift towards behaviors that actually make them feel worse, like watching television or excessive masturbation (lol).

her observation about the state of American society is accurate, and yea I agree it's not relevant to whether the theory of evolution should be accepted. But that's because we're not Creationists, which you'd realize if you had a better understanding of how she comes to her position rather than just refuting her because she believes in what appears to most people as a kind of crackpot/backwards religion.

[wufwugy]

Sorry for the big, disjointed post, but I feel it's only fair to try a point by point approach

I think she is getting at the same thing I'm getting at, which is that it seems that a lot of people these days seem comfortable putting a price on the lives of people they don't know and like.

These days? More like all days. Besides, the only actual documented modern societies that have a reduced level of suffering from the historical and global norm are less religious ones. That's not entirely causative, as there are many reasons, but it is one.

where she and I disagree is whether substituting religion for scientific theory would fully address that and other examples of the problem of over materialism.

The jury is in on this. Because religion is fundamentally based in make-believe, it is wholly malleable, and that malleability sees to it fully capitalizing on its bad side from time to time.

I'm not certain that organized religion is any better but your categorization of Christianity and religion in general wuf is inaccurate and personally insulting(as a christian). Not all religions encourage more negative human behaviors than positive ones, such as mine obv (Methodist, not Creationist. internet: I'm being sarcastic here).

This is somewhat of a misconception. Some religions do not appear problematic in certain ways, but there is actually no evidence that any are truly devoid of the same problems. In pockets, momentarily, some appear to be, but again, because they're based in irrationality, their potential of change is as much as it gets, and you end up seeing some of the most honorable of religions turn evil under different circumstances (think: Samurai Bushido gone horribly wrong in WW2 POW treatment).

Religion, all religion, is a fundamental problem of humanity because it teaches us that being wrong is okay, and making decisions based on ignorance, intuition, and emotion is okay. There are many pockets where religion has a good appearance, but don't ignore the ways in which those very religions impose great evils indirectly, or even go noticeably wrong. One example of "good" xtianity being indirectly inhumane is in its inadvertent utility for bigotry and projected suffering as seen from the Religious Right and hordes of devastating, misery-causing policies they support.

Also, religions aren't what makes people good, people are what make people good. Religion is just an excuse and meeting grounds for a couple certain kinds of goodness

the bigger question is what do we as individuals think is best for humanity? scientific progress, with the unforeseeable implications on human behavior, or happiness? In some instances happiness and progress are mutually exclusive.

Man you don't wanna know what I think. Because mass extinction is the only answer. The rules of human biology and resource scarcity determine the only end of mass suffering is mass extinction, and all the evidence suggests that technological progress naturally creates more inadvertent suffering

On a philosophical level, however, the solution is the scientific method. It is, after all, the one and only tried and true method of knowledge that humans have ever known

For the Creationists a moment of choice arises when it comes to the theory of evolution. Some people are talking about the Singularity, a moment in the future where artificial intelligence will exceed the power of our brains. At that point AI will be able to replicate any human behaviors, perhaps excluding emotions and complex abstractions re: religion and philosophy. That may sound fantastic since we wouldn't have to work anymore, but obviously this will create a major change in human purpose. How will humanity respond to this change? It's possible that a life where the primary activities are socializing and philosophizing would be worse than a life balanced with more suffering, depending on whose eyes you're looking through. Perhaps people not being 'distracted' by 'ordinary' pursuits such as a job would shift towards behaviors that actually make them feel worse, like watching television or excessive masturbation (lol).

FWIW, this future is extremely unlikely. We don't know exactly what to expect, but we can be all but assured that strong AI will have emotions and consciousness just as we do. By far, the most likely scenario is gradual hybridization (we're already stone-aged hybrids today), and eventual species alteration.

Also, not sure what you mean by your comment on a moment of choice for creationists. There's isn't "choice". You can choose to acknowledge gravity or not; likewise, you can choose to acknowledge evolution or not

her observation about the state of American society is accurate, and yea I agree it's not relevant to whether the theory of evolution should be accepted. But that's because we're not Creationists, which you'd realize if you had a better understanding of how she comes to her position rather than just refuting her because she believes in what appears to most people as a kind of crackpot/backwards religion.

Well, if you look at who makes the statement of American society accurate, I think you'll be surprised its those pointing the fingers. There are extremely strong statistics showing that societal problems are more the responsibility of the religious than non-religious.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the rest of your paragraph, FWIW

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

re: 'moment of choice for Creationists'

I'm arguing from the perspective is that there is no certain reality. Humans created the law of gravity the same way they created religion. Because scientific laws were formed by subjective consciousness there's no way of knowing with absolute certainty that they are 'reality'. Almost everyone chooses to accept scientific evidence as 'fact', but it is a choice.

I didn't say religion doesn't create problems, I just said that it also is responsible for encouraging humans to act well. 'People are what make people good': what are people? IMO people are the things they do, and so people are religion. And I think deciding whether religion has been for the good of humanity or otherwise is too big a question to answer with a yes or no.

[boost]

You are not allowed to bring up your "offense as a xtian" ... I mean seriously... what makes you think this is a valid point? I hate to come across as insensitive, but you do realize that your emotional attachment to religion in general, or any one specific religion, has no bearing on whether it has a net negitive, neutral, or net positive effect on society, right? Either include yourself in a rational discussion of the issue, or practice avoidance, but don't try to guilt-end the discussion on account of your feelings.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

lol boost, chill. I'm not using it so support my point, I'm just saying it so you know where I'm coming from.

I don't even disagree that creationism is irrational, I'm just arguing for it to show that it isn't an unreasonable position when you consider that rationality isn't the ultimate form of thinking, a position scientific philosophy has indoctrinated in our thinking

[wufwugy]

re: 'moment of choice for Creationists'

I'm arguing from the perspective is that there is no certain reality. Humans created the law of gravity the same way they created religion. Because scientific laws were formed by subjective consciousness there's no way of knowing with absolute certainty that they are 'reality'. Almost everyone chooses to accept scientific evidence as 'fact', but it is a choice.

This is just a problem of semantics. Language and human capacity to understand language is so primitive that both statements "nothing is certain" and "things are certain" are true. Even with using scientific thought processes, we tend to not understand reality that well. Probably the best way to put your posit is that the most statistically probable things in existence are scientific laws, and the most statistically improbable things in existence are religious claims. Are any of these absolute? Well, no, but are they absolute within the realms of the human mind's ability to evaluate and understand these things? Absolutely

I didn't say religion doesn't create problems, I just said that it also is responsible for encouraging humans to act well.

But that isn't actually true. There is a higher statistical significance of bad behavior among more religiously motivated people than vise versa. There are pockets where this appears to not be the case, but the pockets do not represent statistical significance in favor of your assertion

'People are what make people good': what are people? IMO people are the things they do, and so people are religion.

People are a lot of things, I guess you could say one is religion. I would say if we went down this road of thought it would involve equivocation of my original intent, so I won't.

One thing, however, is that religion is a well-established biological and even social product of human evolution

And I think deciding whether religion has been for the good of humanity or otherwise is too big a question to answer with a yes or no.

If we're talking about civilization, there is a clear answer, and it's "no". The only argument I can postulate that religion is positive in civilization is that it has been shown to have calming correlations with some individuals. As to whether this has been studied on a macro level, I don't think it has, but I suspect the effects would be tiny and probably non-existent

If we're talking about tribal society where religion played minimal roles in bad behavior yet positive roles in social and brain function, then "yes" might be the right answer.

[boost]

re: 'moment of choice for Creationists'

I'm arguing from the perspective is that there is no certain reality. Humans created the law of gravity the same way they created religion. Because scientific laws were formed by subjective consciousness there's no way of knowing with absolute certainty that they are 'reality'. Almost everyone chooses to accept scientific evidence as 'fact', but it is a choice.

I didn't say religion doesn't create problems, I just said that it also is responsible for encouraging humans to act well. 'People are what make people good': what are people? IMO people are the things they do, and so people are religion. And I think deciding whether religion has been for the good of humanity or otherwise is too big a question to answer with a yes or no.

We discovered a way to represent physics through language, we did not create physics or any of the laws that govern it. Through our understanding of physics gained through our learned capability to represent it in language we can know some demonstratable basics, and from there extrapolate all sorts of cool shit.

On the other hand, with religion there is nothing demonstratable about its claims-- it is simply made up.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

wuf, would you agree it's possible that scientifically rational thinking and religion both encourage people to behave bad? so then the question would be which has been worse? And then I guess I'd agree that religion has been worse since few are committing genocide broadly in the name of being rational (notable exception: Hitler).

I agree with your first paragraph completely. Obviously as a poker player I side with Darwin because observable evidence suggests there's a 99.99% chance his understanding of Nature is representative of reality. People aren't necessarily fools because they think the 0.01% probability is the one that represents reality, maybe they weight other modes of thinking higher than rationality such as intuition. And though it's not the way I think, I think that's okay.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

you guys should read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it does a much better job explaining Science's subjectivity

[wufwugy]

lol boost, chill. I'm not using it so support my point, I'm just saying it so you know where I'm coming from.

I don't even disagree that creationism is irrational, I'm just arguing for it to show that it isn't an unreasonable position when you consider that rationality isn't the ultimate form of thinking, a position scientific philosophy has indoctrinated in our thinking

I suggest you rework your sources because you're not accurate on your definitions. For example, you're equivocating rationalism and empiricism, yet they couldn't be more different. It is very easy to confuse a lot of the semantics, though, because there is some overlap due to the contributors to philosophy not having the exact same understanding and vernacular.

Or maybe you weren't referring to rationalism, but rationality, but then it is a mistake to claim scientific philosophy as having any bearing on it because rationality is simply the ability for humans to have understanding.

But I'm also not the best person to give a concise rundown of definitions because I have to research a lot as I go, and they can get hairy. A lot of it is worthless fluff too


Here's a pretty solid linear breakdown of how we know what we know

Rationality is the ability to think with reason (and develop knowledge), philosophy is the most fundamental study of anything and everything (including knowledge), epistemology is the study of knowledge, empiricism (science) and rationalism are the methods of gathering knowledge, empiricism is the only known correct method (because it's based in experimental observation), and rationalism is generally incorrect but it still has what I would call an amateur place in facilitating empiricism in the ways in which it's not really different than logic


Also, you're contradicting yourself if you claim science and logic as being an inadequate form of thought because you're using science and logic to formulate that thought. At this point in time, we have quite the steadfast and definitive understanding of knowledge.

[wufwugy]

wuf, would you agree it's possible that scientifically rational thinking and religion both encourage people to behave bad?

I've been referring to macros. Yes, on micro, pocketed, isolated levels, anything can encourage bad things. On the systemic macro levels, all we have to do is look at the results

so then the question would be which has been worse? And then I guess I'd agree that religion has been worse since few are committing genocide broadly in the name of being rational (notable exception: Hitler).

Naw dude Hitler was uber religious. Uber. Superstitious people always claim rationality too. There are very few things like genocide in the name of empiricism. And when you could make a case for an indirect correlation, it would mostly be from something like greedy sociopaths causing proxy suffering

I agree with your first paragraph completely. Obviously as a poker player I side with Darwin because observable evidence suggests there's a 99.99% chance his understanding of Nature is representative of reality. People aren't necessarily fools because they think the 0.01% probability is the one that represents reality, maybe they weight other modes of thinking higher than rationality such as intuition. And though it's not the way I think, I think that's okay.

Let's see, how do I explain this....

On the one hand, we have empiricism that has repeatably, experimentally, non-contradictorily demonstrated that intuition is not a reliable form of knowledge. Then we have intuition claiming itself to be a reliable form of knowledge. We even have empiricism doing everything possible to demonstrate innumerable different ways we can infer the truth of empiricism and falseness of intuition.

Keep in mind that with the understanding of probability that we agreed upon, intuition being a form of reliable knowledge gathering is about as unlikely as the most unlikely thing you can think of

[wufwugy]

you guys should read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it does a much better job explaining Science's subjectivity

I have read many Zen books

But none of them could explain science subjectivity since it isn't subjective. That's what actually makes it science.

If I had to guess, I would say the author probably confused science being subject to reality, existence, and the physical universe as subjectivity. The position of which would be an inherent contradiction. Or maybe it had to do with misunderstanding quantum mechanics and things like the uncertainty principle and extrapolating that to fit an ideology

[spoonitnow]

you guys should read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it does a much better job explaining a scientist's subjectivity

Fixed your post; Pirsig is my intellectual hero.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

thx spoon, I need to read his book again because I might have misinterpreted what he trying to say on the subject of scientific subjectivity.

wuf: it's likely I'm not using the correct words but I think you understand what I was trying to say. Yes I did use logical thinking to make my statement, and yea in a way that invalidates any 'truth' (if there is such a thing) behind it. From my point of view it isn't contradictory.

empiricism cannot invalidate intuition, and here's why I think that. We observe the force of gravity and have correlated whatever factors influence gravity to things being pulled towards massive objects. It is theoretically possible there are mechanisms involved in the force of gravity that we cannot perceive, such as things occurring in other dimensions. Or God.

I just wikied Hitler and you're right he seems to have been motivated to commit genocide by religious ideas, my bad. religion definitely has been responsible for more violence and negativity in the world than science, but it's fair to say scientific philosphy hasn't been around as long or 'developed' for as much time as religion has.

love the new sig btw

I'm getting tired from playing devil's advocate for Wendy!

[wufwugy]

empiricism cannot invalidate intuition, and here's why I think that. We observe the force of gravity and have correlated whatever factors influence gravity to things being pulled towards massive objects. It is theoretically possible there are mechanisms involved in the force of gravity that we cannot perceive, such as things occurring in other dimensions. Or God.

You're referring to the theory of gravity now, not law of gravity. Law is pretty much the statement of fact or observation, theory is the explanation of that statement. You're also pulling a variation of the God of the Gaps fallacy by implying that what we don't know could be the solution.

Regardless, your assertion that there are things we can't know is very accurate. But the assertion that the unknowable changes the knowable is false. And that, I think, is the crux. No matter what is going on in other dimensions or the Brane-verse, none of that could or would change our empirical observation of our world. If there was reliability to something like intuition, it would be empirically detectable. If there is a god-thing out there doing something we don't understand, it doesn't affect our physical universe unless it affects our physical universe, and then it's detectable

There is confusion in that people generally believe in metaphysics and supernatural stuff. Let's be clear, there has never been in all of recorded research any evidence of anything non-physical. Even the thought that there could be non-physical-ness is itself physical

I just wikied Hitler and you're right he seems to have been motivated to commit genocide by religious ideas, my bad. religion definitely has been responsible for more violence and negativity in the world than science, but it's fair to say scientific philosphy hasn't been around as long or 'developed' for as much time as religion has.

I'd say you're referring to technology, not science. Philosophy of science is extremely developed, and will never change beyond the slightest of tweaks. And I actually believe that technology will eventually become infinitely more evil than any other thing in biological history. There will come a day when technology is so great that virtual sensory consciousnesses can be placed in perpetual torture.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

I disagree that the unknowable doesn't change the knowable, and that's because I think nothing is objectively known. I found a good passage in Pirsig's book, ZAMM:

Einstein had said, 'Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it... He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience... The supreme task... is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them...'

A lesser scientists than Einstein might have said, "But scientific logic comes from nature. Nature provides the hypothesis". But Einstein understood that nature does not. Nature provides only experimental data.

A less mind might then have said, "Well then, man provides the hypotheses". But Einstein denied this too. "Nobody," he said, "who has really gone into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no theoretical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles."

Phaedrus'(main character) break occurred when, as a result of laboratory experience, he became interested in the hypotheses as entities in themselves. He had noticed again and again in his lab work that what might seem to be the hardest part of scientific work, thinking up the hypotheses, was invariably the easiest. The act of formally writing everything down precisely and clearly seemed to suggest them. As he was testing hypothesis number one by experimental method a flood of other hypotheses would come to mind, and as he was testing these, some more came to mind, and as he was testing these, still more came to mind until it became painfully evident that as he continued testing hypotheses and eliminating them or confirming them their number did not decrease. It actually increased as he went along.

At first he found it amusing. He coined a law intended to have the humor of a Parkinson's law that "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomena is infinite". It pleased him to never run out of hypotheses. Even when his experimental work seemed dead-end in every conceivable way, he knew that if he just sat down and muddled about it long enough, sure enough, another hypothesis would come along. And it always did. It was only months after he coined the law that he began to have some doubts about the humor or benefits of it.

If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!

If the purpose of scientific method is to select from among a multitude of hypotheses, and if the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested. If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive and the entire scientific method falls short of its goal of establishing proven knowledge.

About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," and let it go at that. But to Phaedrus that was an incredibly weak answer. The phrase "at any given moment" really shook him. Did Einstein really mean to state that truth was a function of time? To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science!

But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of continuously new and changing explanations of old facts. The time spans of permanence seemed completely random, he could see no order in them. Some scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year. Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studies like anything else.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

In theory I guess even the law of gravity could be amended or discarded when another, more accurate, hypothesis can be thought up and confirmed to explain the phenomenon.

maybe Pirsig's supposition that hypotheses are infinite is flawed, I don't know

[a500lbgorilla]

re: 'moment of choice for Creationists'

I'm arguing from the perspective is that there is no certain reality. Humans created the law of gravity the same way they created religion. Because scientific laws were formed by subjective consciousness there's no way of knowing with absolute certainty that they are 'reality'.

That's the beauty of the scientific method. It takes our subjective conscious minds and puts them through a step by step process to know nature for how nature is. It tries to minimize the weakness inherent in how we think and know and reach a conclusion that is true independent of our inclinations.

Why do you think String Theory isn't a scientific theory? Our inclination is that such a beautiful set of maths that describe all particles and phenomenon should be brilliantly accurate to reality but since we can't test it to verify, it's left to the realm of people arguing for or against it until more data becomes available. String Theory is like religion. Theory of Gravity (including special and general relativity) is science.

empiricism cannot invalidate intuition

I disagree. It can for such an easy reason as saying it can. If it doesn't for you, than you need to find a way to make sure it does. Might I suggest the scientific method?

and here's why I think that. We observe the force of gravity and have correlated whatever factors influence gravity to things being pulled towards massive objects. It is theoretically possible there are mechanisms involved in the force of gravity that we cannot perceive, such as things occurring in other dimensions. Or God.

A supremely excellent point. So now we need to hack away until we know what we don't know; until we perceive what we haven't yet perceived. You're allowed to say God for as long as you wish to explain those things hidden in the constant G. But once someone finds that data and fits it to a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis and shovels it on to many other minds who shall do the same, God's lot in this problem will shrink. Or maybe you'll prove him, who knows?

I can't help you with that, but I encounter a whole bunch of fudge factors in fluid flow dynamics and each one essentially says "here's a number you put in to make the calculations correct." If you could figure out what we don't know about those numbers, you'd probably gain a nice bit of notoriety. G i think is different, but I don't really know how it came to be.