God is "beyond" science!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(06-01-2013 10:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I am a rational person and I do see that some beliefs become maladaptive and go extinct despite the death throws of it's faithful. But as a rational person, I also know that the essential question remains. I also know that it is beyond the ability of science to answer, let alone comment on.

Pretty big ego there. Let's explore it a bit.

Everyone thinks they're rational. I'd be surprised if you thought you were irrational -- I've never heard anyone claim such a thing. However, it sounds like you're using it as a claim to expertise, like fstratzero should simply take your word for it because "you're rational". Is it even possible to know what is beyond the ability of science to answer? Scientists have commented on an awful large number of things that we never expected it weigh in on. I think it's rather egotistical (and did I mention impossible?) to know what science can't answer ("let alone comment on"). And while I'm already picking on you, the phrase is "death throes".

Now maybe you are rational... but I doubt it. There are characteristics that define a rational person such as critical thinking, logic, and attempts at objectivity. I should know because I'm rational (surprise! everyone makes this claim!). But at least I can cite this claim. It doesn't necessarily make me right, but what it does mean is that if I'm wrong, I'm not wrong alone Tongue

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 11:27 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Go fuck yourself, Starcrash. I'm a little sick of your bullshit.

Fst.

There's nothing mere about it. I don't give a shit what it's historical place is, today, we know it's bullshit. The fact that you didn't bat an eye at the savage comments illustrates how insidious the idea is. If your argument was based on the notion that the negro is cognitively inferior to the white man, I'd call that racist too. And bullshit. I don't care how ubiquitous it was two hundred years ago. It's merely nothing. It's a part of a racist complex of ideas that still harm people to this day. His whole argument is racist bullshit and it deserves to be left in the past. It's like if you made an argument about men and supported it with, "the woman creature is by far frailer in every capacity than the man." Savages are inferior, blacks are inferior, women are inferior. NONE of it is acceptable in any form in any intellectual discussion today; so don't pretend that it is. And for the record, I would never use something Darwin said about savages and hold it up like it had any value whatsoever because it doesn't; no matter how much I love his work on evolution. So don't sit there and tell me that using shit that makes the case that savages are devoid of thought is a reasonable thing to use to support your argument and white wash it with, well, it's just a thing they said. That is one of the single most ridiculous arguments I've heard in months.

And note, you skipped over every argument I made and focused on this. You even skipped the parts where I agreed with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2013, 01:41 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2013 02:08 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(07-01-2013 11:27 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Go fuck yourself, Starcrash. I'm a little sick of your bullshit.

Fst.

There's nothing mere about it. I don't give a shit what it's historical place is, today, we know it's bullshit. The fact that you didn't bat an eye at the savage comments illustrates how insidious the idea is. If your argument was based on the notion that the negro is cognitively inferior to the white man, I'd call that racist too. And bullshit. I don't care how ubiquitous it was two hundred years ago. It's merely nothing. It's a part of a racist complex of ideas that still harm people to this day. His whole argument is racist bullshit and it deserves to be left in the past. It's like if you made an argument about men and supported it with, "the woman creature is by far frailer in every capacity than the man." Savages are inferior, blacks are inferior, women are inferior. NONE of it is acceptable in any form in any intellectual discussion today; so don't pretend that it is. And for the record, I would never use something Darwin said about savages and hold it up like it had any value whatsoever because it doesn't; no matter how much I love his work on evolution. So don't sit there and tell me that using shit that makes the case that savages are devoid of thought is a reasonable thing to use to support your argument and white wash it with, well, it's just a thing they said. That is one of the single most ridiculous arguments I've heard in months.

And note, you skipped over every argument I made and focused on this. You even skipped the parts where I agreed with you.
Of course I skipped over the parts where we agree. Where we agree there is no argument, but I do acknowledge that we have a lot common ground, and disagree on a few points that I'd like to debate over.

I don't understand your hypersensitivity to the word savage. The world over has been savage. My european ancestry was also once a tribal society eventually taken over by the christian church, as well as my native American ancestry. I don't deny my history rather I embrace what has happened and learned to be at peace with it.

Now if you have read D'holbach you'd see many old terms considered today to be racist, but at the same time when he compares tribal beliefs to that of Christianity, he clearly states that tribesman have more evidence for their gods than christian theologians of theirs.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2013, 08:40 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2013 08:43 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(07-01-2013 11:27 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Go fuck yourself, Starcrash. I'm a little sick of your bullshit.

Try this on for size... you could become rational any time you wanted to be.

All you have to do is admit when you make a mistake, not only to yourself but to the person (or people) that make you realize that you've made that mistake. There's almost no drawbacks. You might feel a bit of embarrassment, but it'll pass quickly when you notice that nobody is making fun of you for "being wrong", because we all know that everybody makes mistakes and that kind of response is childish and hypocritical.

In fact, I enjoy being corrected. Admitting I'm wrong gives me credibility against anyone who would claim that I'm stubborn or close-minded. It may show that I was wrong at one time, but I can claim that I'm currently as right as possible (which I feel is more important than being seen as "always right"). It also gives me empathy when I'm arguing against someone who holds a position that I once held.

I didn't explain why I don't think you're irrational (outside of claiming that I'm rational, therefore I can recognize it) but the reason why is because of responses such as this one. You never admit you're wrong. To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen anyone publicly admit to being wrong outside of myself and KingsChosen. But your language makes it clear that you don't even consider the possibility that you could be mistaken -- you always argue with those who disagree with you, and you never give an inch. Even here you don't seem to have a defense except to lash out... you must have recognized that I'm at least a little right.

You want to demonstrate real "peace, love, and empathy"? Be rational. Don't waste that intelligence or willingness to debate. Fundamentalism isn't very useful.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2013, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2013 10:03 AM by Ghost.)
RE: God is "beyond" science!
....Snore......

Oh. I'm sorry. Are you still flappin' yer gums, Starcrash? Personal attacks and sweeping generalisations just put me right to sleep. Y'know, when they're not sending me into berzerker blood rages. But you at the moment, you're just rehashing tired, tired material. It's boring.

Hey, fst.

I'm not hypersensitive. A man whose cranium explodes when a .50 caliber round slams into it is not hypersensitive to bullets. He's normal. You're the one that, to me, seems inured to the term. For you it means little, if anything; which is why I think the notion is so insidious. To me, it's racist bullshit. It's as racist as claims that blacks aren't as smart as whites. The problem with what you posted is that the man stakes his entire argument on this particular bullshit racist argument. The points he makes are invalidated because the well from which he draws his water is poisoned. It's not just something he mentioned off hand, it's the core of his argument. So you've presented some centuries old utterly debunked thing to me that just happens to be racist and you're asking me to take it seriously. I can't do that. Because it's a giant load of horseshit.

I just did a quick surf to grab an example. This is allegedly from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica.
Quote:The Negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids… Mentally the Negro is inferior to the white.

If you posted something that made that statement, I don't think that you'd accuse me of being "hypersensitive" if I said that it was utter bullshit; especially if the argument drew conclusions from it. Because (I fucking pray) that you can see it plainly for what it is. My theory, and this is an assumption, is that you don't see what the man said about savages as horseshit because on some level, you've bought into the ideology that assumes he's right. I don't say that to call you ignorant or call your out or anything. I just think that it's plain as can be that it's BS and I'm at a loss to understand your "meh, it ain't so bad" attitude.

I hope that the example I supplied was stark enough to illustrate what I mean.

Now, I'm sure that you posted it because you were trying to illustrate something, but for real, I just can't get past the whole "savages are devoid of thought" thing. It's such an outrageously ignorant thing to say, that I just can't take anything he says seriously. Not only is it astonishingly ignorant, but it is the foundation of his comparison. So I just can't take his comparison seriously.






So I propose this. If you can separate out the racist BS, then state in your own words what this guy is trying to say. Maybe you can make some sense out of it for me.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(29-12-2012 06:46 PM)GodlessnFree Wrote:  Lennox illustrated his criticism of scientism with a metaphor: Aunt Matilda's Cake. The metaphor is often praised among faitheads, I suggest you watch it in case you haven't done so yet. In a nutshell, the metaphor of the cake explains that science can allow us to know the physical properties of the cake (density, weight, volume, material composition) but not the metaphysical properties of it (purpose, maker, proper use). Then the cake is compared to the universe and Lennox claims that the universe also has metaphysical properties that are beyond science and require another way of reasoning in order to be known.
Specifically on the Lennox thing, if you check out his Aunt Matilda explanation he basically claims the cake has two facets, its physical properties and the purpose it was intended for by its creator (I suppose this is akin to Dennett's 'intentional stance'). He states that the latter can only be known if said creator chooses to reveal it, so we can only know why Aunt Matilda baked the cake if she tells us. Lennox then extends this to claim the universe has a purpose, as given to it by its creator, and that the Bible reveals that purpose. He closes by suggesting we ask ourselves if the purpose in the Bible makes sense to us -- he is (I think) by implication suggesting that if the purpose explained in the Bible makes sense, than that tells us something about the likelihood of a creator.

Well yes, OF COURSE the Bible makes sense to humans -- it was written by other humans (!!)

Taking Lennox's analogy to its ridiculous conclusion: Aunt Matilda's cake was intended to be eaten (the 'purpose' Lennox talks about), but only by fellow humans. Aunt Matilta's cat would not appreciate Aunt Matilda's cake -- likewise a cake baked by Aunt Matilda's cat (assuming said tabby could cook) would not be appreciated by Aunt Matilda herself as it would likely taste very fishy! So... if we discovered a cake, just lying about, and it was very tasty to humans, the most likely candidate for a purposeful creator is another human. Likewise, if we discovered a cake that was horrid to humans but highly tasty to cats, the prime suspect for a creator would be cat who had mastered the culinary arts.

Of course this opens up another argument: why are humans the only species that figure in the creator's 'purpose'? What has he got against mice, and dolphins, and cats... Or indeed space aliens? But that's a whole different kettle of fish... Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(08-01-2013 09:41 PM)Ghost Wrote:  ....Snore......

Oh. I'm sorry. Are you still flappin' yer gums, Starcrash? Personal attacks and sweeping generalisations just put me right to sleep. Y'know, when they're not sending me into berzerker blood rages. But you at the moment, you're just rehashing tired, tired material. It's boring.

I'm sorry, what part of my post was a personal attack? I mean, I quoted your "go fuck yourself"... is that the personal attack you were referring to? I called you irrational, but that wasn't a pejorative... I defined it and then described why it fit you. So I'm genuinely confused about what part of it you thought was a personal attack. But even if I had -- and I know this is "boring" because I'm sure you're already aware of it -- accusing somebody of a personal attack while being insulting will have no impact. Do you want your arguments to have no impact?

I know it's a rehash of tired, tired material, and if you had learned something the first times that you heard it and then applied that education, it wouldn't need repeating. If it's boring to you, then you must already be aware of everything I said... so why are you still irrational? Is that a personal choice? Do you prefer to be irrational? Because if you know that you're irrational and know how to fix it, I can't see what else would prevent you from becoming rational except your personal choices and preferences.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(08-01-2013 09:41 PM)Ghost Wrote:  ....Snore......

Oh. I'm sorry. Are you still flappin' yer gums, Starcrash? Personal attacks and sweeping generalisations just put me right to sleep. Y'know, when they're not sending me into berzerker blood rages. But you at the moment, you're just rehashing tired, tired material. It's boring.

Hey, fst.

I'm not hypersensitive. A man whose cranium explodes when a .50 caliber round slams into it is not hypersensitive to bullets. He's normal. You're the one that, to me, seems inured to the term. For you it means little, if anything; which is why I think the notion is so insidious. To me, it's racist bullshit. It's as racist as claims that blacks aren't as smart as whites. The problem with what you posted is that the man stakes his entire argument on this particular bullshit racist argument. The points he makes are invalidated because the well from which he draws his water is poisoned. It's not just something he mentioned off hand, it's the core of his argument. So you've presented some centuries old utterly debunked thing to me that just happens to be racist and you're asking me to take it seriously. I can't do that. Because it's a giant load of horseshit.

I just did a quick surf to grab an example. This is allegedly from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica.
Quote:The Negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids… Mentally the Negro is inferior to the white.

If you posted something that made that statement, I don't think that you'd accuse me of being "hypersensitive" if I said that it was utter bullshit; especially if the argument drew conclusions from it. Because (I fucking pray) that you can see it plainly for what it is. My theory, and this is an assumption, is that you don't see what the man said about savages as horseshit because on some level, you've bought into the ideology that assumes he's right. I don't say that to call you ignorant or call your out or anything. I just think that it's plain as can be that it's BS and I'm at a loss to understand your "meh, it ain't so bad" attitude.

I hope that the example I supplied was stark enough to illustrate what I mean.

Now, I'm sure that you posted it because you were trying to illustrate something, but for real, I just can't get past the whole "savages are devoid of thought" thing. It's such an outrageously ignorant thing to say, that I just can't take anything he says seriously. Not only is it astonishingly ignorant, but it is the foundation of his comparison. So I just can't take his comparison seriously.


So I propose this. If you can separate out the racist BS, then state in your own words what this guy is trying to say. Maybe you can make some sense out of it for me.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
In an anthropological or scientific context, the term "savage" is controversial and usually considered obsolete. It can mean:

*Any person, group or behavior distinct from civilization
*Barbarian, a usually pejorative word for an uncivilized person
*Band society, a comparatively simple form of human society
*Hunter-gatherer, a member of a society whose food is mostly procured directly from undomesticated sources
*Indigenous peoples, non-Western groups whose history predates contact with Western culture
*Noble savage, a person viewed as uncorrupted by civilization
*Primitive culture, a culture lacking modernity
*Tribe, a type of social organization distinct from states

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 07:25 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
If someone called your argument "boring", Ghost, would that convince you that you had it all wrong? Would that win you over? Would you say, "My God! That person is right! I totally forgot that part of having an influential argument is keeping my opponent entertained!"

I can't imagine that denial is fun, and it must be difficult to keep trying to ignore someone whose goal is helping you. Otherwise, I think you'd actually ignore me.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: