Karma?

IamChappy
IamChappy's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Karma?

Hello everyone!

OK. So here is a question that I would like to have some opinions on (or maybe even answers?)

I am sure all of you are aware of the saying about if you do good things then good things will happen to you. Of course, if you do bad things then bad things will happen to your sinful ass. Yes, I am talking about Earl’s worse enemy, karma. So whenever something “good” happens to me, I sometimes feel like it is because of something I did good in the past (vice versa as well).

I try to think rationally about this and say “hey, shit happens no matter how good or bad you are!” But I guess I am looking for a better answer than that. Could karma be really true? Have there been any studies done about this? Could it just be human instinct or the way we were raised when we think about karma?

I can see where “believers” can argue about this and say that this is proof of a, I hate to say this but, “supernatural” higher power being involved.

The reason why I am asking this is because I was screwed over by a girl (who was a really good friend of mine and a Mormon of all religions!) who I loaned $300 to. Now, a year has passed by with no money back and no way to contact her either. So I really do hope karma (if there is such a thing) bites her hard right in the ass cheek for what she did to me!

Could my feelings just be human instinct? Or could it be my rational and irrational thinking at war with one another? LOL I don’t know but I would love to read some input about this and what are rational thinking people’s beliefs or thoughts of karma?

Then of course there is the contradicting saying that nice guys always finish last…

Damn it, now I am even more confused!
 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
IamChappy wrote:Then of

IamChappy wrote:

Then of course there is the contradicting saying that nice guys always finish last…

Damn it, now I am even more confused!
 

Don't forget "Only the good die young."

Completely irrational. Fun to think about karma kicking someone else's ass for us though.

I think it goes directly to where and what we did to affect any outcome. Obviously, the golden rule plays into the outcome if someone else is involved in the outcome of a situation.

However, a good thing happening due to a good deed done for something wholly irrelevant to the thing makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm nice to a little old lady and BAM I hit the lottery. Must be Karma because I helped the little old lady. Nope. I won the lottery because I bought a ticket. Period.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Heath Ledger died at 28....

Heath Ledger died at 28.... Mel Gibson is still alive and churning out crap !

Bill Hicks dead at 32...  While Yakov Smirnoff is still packing out his very own concert hall in Branson, MO, giving brain dead xtians a chuckle w/ the same stupid material he used during the Reagan administration.

John Lennon liked the idea of Karma, yet he was shot dead by an idiot at age 40...  Air Supply is still touring.

 

Karma is a great concept and there is certainly something to be said for recriprocal altruism, but I see no evidence for any of its suggested "divine" aspect.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


IamChappy
IamChappy's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Guess I wasn't thinking clearly...

All right!  I am getting a clearer picture now from the examples.

I almost forgot about that Alaskan sex offender who won the lottery where the procedes went to a charity who helped victims of sex offenders.  Ironic for sure but what "good" deed did the sex offender do to win the lottery?

That would be an awesome rebuttal for the fundys!

Thanks guys/gals!

Life can be hilariously cruel...


DanMullin
DanMullin's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-05-09
User is offlineOffline
If you haven't heard, that

If you haven't heard, that same sex offender was beaten with an iron pipe shortly after.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59638.html


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Bad things can happen to

Bad things can happen to good people, and usually not because they deserved it but because they were unlucky. Of course I don't need to tell you guys that, but to me, Calvinistic self-loathing burnt so deep into my brain that it almost seems to be a simple matter of fact, no thought is more comforting.


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Karma is nothing more than

Karma is nothing more than wishful thinking.


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
Consider how good deeds can

Consider how good deeds can modify your personal character.  I don't think that karma as a divine aspect is true, but I do think that by doing good things it can save your ass down the road as being a "good person" on a regular basis can modify your character in good light.  Of course it's not black and white, and we can suffer because life is random!  

I like to think that by being doing random acts of kindness, and by being a positive person as a whole, one can have more oppurtunities to experience good things in their life.  I think the golden rule can be seen clearly by "you did someone a favor, so they'll do you a favor" but it can also be seen as "by being a trsutworthy person" you were more conscieously aware to do something that might save your ass down the road.  By having personal integrity, holding oneself accountable to other people, and by being fair and honest, and it is part of your nature, you can find yourself in a position where you almost insticivly follow the golden rule and benefit as a result.  Imagine not following this at all and trying to hold a job?  I don't think so. I also think you  may experience a seemingly indirect form of "karma" but in reality could be traced down to a series of good deeds.  Without the investigation though perhaps you wouldn't know for sure and assume it was divine.

By proving yourself trustworthy, respectable, and accountable, you can benefit by just having that character.   By having that character people may put "oppurtunites" which you can take advantage of (should you not be blind) in front of you that can be beneficial to your life.  By being liked and trusted, other people are more likely to see more of your strengths.  With more of your strengths in plain site, it's possible someone might give you an oppurtunity to exploit it/them.

In a nut shell I think that there are four main types of "good oppurtunities" that arrive at your doorstep(possibility for something good happenign to you).  First is the social beneficiary, which comes from having relationships with other people(golden rule is good to follow by having this).  Second is the random oppurtunites that arrive(you find/win random money)  The third is through competition(training and practicing a skill and winning or achieving something fair and square) and the fourth is through cheating (fucking others over, but with possibility of it coming back to bite you in the ass)

Bottom line is I think that people would have more "good things" happening to them if they took advantage of oppurtunities around them and put themselves out there to obtain them.  I think a lot of people sell themselves short or are blind to oppurtunities in the first place.

THe paradox is that while one can be agressive and do their best to look for oppurtunities and to find more good things in their lives; they put them selves at risk to failure, error, and even death.  Another issue I have with the golden rule is that if you absolutely hate yourself it won't get you that far.

Karma is nothing more than wishful thinking, but the golden rule does have it's benefits, so long as we're not black and white.  Knowledge is power, so if one truely wants to have "good things" happening in their lives, they ought to find a way to increase their chances, as well as have the confidence to get off their ass and get them.  Many oppurtinities require commitment.  Many good things that happened to me in my life were a result of commitment, being reliable, and holding a positive attitude.

 


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote: Bill

AmericanIdle wrote:

 

Bill Hicks dead at 32...  While Yakov Smirnoff is still packing out his very own concert hall in Branson, MO, giving brain dead xtians a chuckle w/ the same stupid material he used during the Reagan administration.

 

In Soviet Russia, 32 is dead at Bill Hicks!

Oh.  Oh wait, that doesn't work.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
(Back luck) it floats

(Back luck) it floats around. Has to land on somebody . Say, a storm comes through. Some folks sit in their living rooms and enjoy the rain. The house next door gets torn out and smashed flat. It was my turn. That's all. I was in the path of tornado. I just had no idea the storm would go on as long as it has.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian

SmallChristian wrote:

Knowledge is power, so if one truely wants to have "good things" happening in their lives, they ought to find a way to increase their chances, as well as have the confidence to get off their ass and get them. 

Fortune favors the brave.


 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
While karma does not exist

While karma does not exist there are still karma-like things that go on. If you're a good person, you volunteer, donate to charity, help people in need, then you'll build up a reputation as being a pretty nice guy. Because of that other people in your community will treat you better. If you're a dick to everyone then no one will like you. In this way karma works bout if you kill a guy a tornado doesn't have a more likely chance to hit your house or not.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Karma, or the law of action

Karma, or the law of action and reaction is diffcult to understand without seeing it in a broader context. It's diffcult to guess for what did we deserve good or bad things in our life. If a bad thing happened to us, it may be either a reaction on something bad we did, or a reaction for something good, which just saved us from something much worse we did later or earlier... There are many other examples refuting this naive idea of karma. Good deed = good karma, bad deed = bad karma? Maybe, but there are many factors changing these equations into almost unrecognizable picture, of which we can see only a tiny part. Law of Karma is only one of many, affecting the human life. If you try to explain the human life just by karma, it won't work. You guys here actually mixed to it a free will, game theory, and single examples, where maybe a large-scale statistic overview might show it better.

All right, it's not necessary to know the whole millenial image, we can live well just by following the Golden rule and accepting the consequences. The details are there for those interested.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Dracos
Posts: 106
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Karma

I am a Hindu.  And so are you.  The first superstion that humans had was established about 14,00 years ago.  There are three fources in the univrse.  Creation, desruction, and preservation.  They name them Vishnu, Shiva and Brama.

No one can deny them.  They are real.  People have given them them silly stories

and silly things but no one can deny that they are real.  They don't give a damn about humans.  Who can say I don't use the chicken poop to fertilize the apple trees

to feed my family.  They are real but don't try to pray to them.  It won't help younwin the lottery.

 

 

 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Dracos wrote:I am a Hindu. 

Dracos wrote:

I am a Hindu.  And so are you.  The first superstion that humans had was established about 14,00 years ago.  There are three fources in the univrse.  Creation, desruction, and preservation.  They name them Vishnu, Shiva and Brama.

No one can deny them.  They are real.  People have given them them silly stories

and silly things but no one can deny that they are real.  They don't give a damn about humans.  Who can say I don't use the chicken poop to fertilize the apple trees

to feed my family.  They are real but don't try to pray to them.  It won't help younwin the lottery.

I would definitely argue that they don't exist. At least not in the sense that I think you're using them in.

And what's with the U in forces? I know British English has a lot of Us in words that US English doesn't, but I've yet to see it in forces.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
Dracos wrote:I am a Hindu. 

Dracos wrote:

I am a Hindu.  And so are you.  The first superstion that humans had was established about 14,00 years ago.  There are three fources in the univrse.  Creation, desruction, and preservation.  They name them Vishnu, Shiva and Brama.

No one can deny them.  They are real.  People have given them them silly stories

and silly things but no one can deny that they are real.  They don't give a damn about humans.  Who can say I don't use the chicken poop to fertilize the apple trees

to feed my family.  They are real but don't try to pray to them.  It won't help younwin the lottery.

 

 

Creation, destruction, and preservation are patterns labeled and defined by human beings.  Human beings are nothing but larged brained mammals capable of creating, destroying, and preserving.  Human creativity is amazing I think, and I love it, despire that it invents Religion.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Dracos wrote:I am a Hindu. 

Dracos wrote:
I am a Hindu.  And so are you.  The first superstion that humans had was established about 14,00 years ago.  There are three fources in the univrse.  Creation, desruction, and preservation.  They name them Vishnu, Shiva and Brama.

No one can deny them.  They are real.  People have given them them silly stories

and silly things but no one can deny that they are real.  They don't give a damn about humans.  Who can say I don't use the chicken poop to fertilize the apple trees

to feed my family.  They are real but don't try to pray to them.  It won't help younwin the lottery.

I've heard about that, though a bit more in detail.  But to detect these forces scientifically, we would need like 100 - 200 more years of scientific development. Let's see a small example of this: If you are familiar with the theory of subtle worlds...
Quote:
H.P. Blavatsky in her Theosophical writings presented an extremely complex cosmology, in terms of a sevenfold series of cosmic planes and subplanes, and a very detailed sevenfold system of cycles and sub-cycles of existence. These ideas were adapted by later esotericists like Rudolf Steiner (Anthroposophy), Max Heindel, Alice Bailey, and Ann Ree Colton, and some of these ideas made their way into New Age thought in general. (wiki)

 

Quote:
Q. According to New Scientist magazine, scientists have discovered that space is filled by an unknown radiation. Its radiation is six times stronger than all known astronomic sources within this frequency band taken together. The scientists were seeking to discover small changes in the cosmic background frequency, the microwave echo of the Big Bang. Instead they discovered something more exciting: a mysterious radiation, whose origin is absolutely unclear, which seems to fill the universe.

The astronomers believe that they have discovered something new: according to the NASA scientists involved, the signal was not discovered earlier since Earth-based telescopes were not yet sensitive enough.

What is it? Please could you comment on this discovery?

A. If the scientists are representing correctly what they are seeing, they are discovering for themselves what has already been discovered by Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957), the well-known psychoanalyst and later scientist, who discovered a primordial energy which he named ‘orgone’. He saw it as an energy which interpenetrated all forms of matter. He experimented with orgone in many ways: in healing and cloud-busting (making rain) where and when needed by very simple means. The US Food and Drug Administration had him arrested and imprisoned for his trouble, and he died in prison.

I believe that the vibration which astronomers have discovered, the ‘orgone’ of Wilhelm Reich, and the higher etheric levels of matter are one and the same. Scientists today recognize matter as being solid, liquid and gaseous but esoterists know that there are four further states of matter above gas known as the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st plane of etheric matter. So instead of three planes, there are actually seven planes of matter.

All matter is a precipitation of light and so the field of matter is light precipitated into seven more or less material planes.

Well, and according to theory, these three forces if I understand you correctly, are much more diffcult to discover than etheric planes, which are basically still physical. So I hope that you as a Hindu believe in reincarnation, if you want to see a scientific proof of them in future. I personally prefer to focus on the etheric worlds, and the etheric body of mine, mainly. (the one on which the chakras are) I do some interesting experiments and exercises with it, which works when I train them, so I have my own irrefutable evidence, but what you describe, is far from my verifying abilities.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Thanks to Luminom (as usual)

Thanks to Luminon (as usual) & selected Co this thread has degenerated into delusional crap very quickly.

 

Karma as a religious concept is predicated on belief in the existence of a soul. It is therefore rubbish. The patterns, the supposed causes and even more supposed effects which are employed to delineate the concept are as much illusions as the finding of the face of Jesus on one's chocolate chip cookie.

 

There are no "forces" (or even "fources" ) in the physical universe that apply themselves to satisfying the human desire that justice should prevail. Nor are there any that "control" a pattern perceived by humans which excludes random action.

 

The study of matter does not have to be sidetracked into delusional notions of "etheric matter" in order to hold its fascination. There are six broad categories into which matter can be divided (and several intermediary definitions), none of which prove, support or even suggest that the ill-informed delusional guesswork of so-called "psychics" has any business being inserted into a logical discussion based on fact. "Etheric matter" has all the provenance therefore of any other perversion of language so-called "psychics" employ to promote their fallacies - ie. none.

 

People who engage in the promotion of such delusional quack perversions of science are, in my view, theists in all but name. What they are doing on this forum, which explicitly excludes such rubbish-laden foolery in its stated remit, makes me wonder why this site bothers to make the regulation at all.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
To answer your original

To answer your original questions IamChappy:

 

The notion that doing good things means that good things will happen to you is one which belongs in the field of behavioural science and especially in the complex study of intercommunal behaviour. An anthropologist, taking the long view, will probably assert that the evidence suggests otherwise. A psychologist on the other hand will probably readily provide clear and demonstrable reasons why, in many instances, the notion has merit. What both have to allow for however is the marked absence of an objective standard for "good" and "bad" in the context of the equation. The question therefore addresses qualitative subjective assessment on the part of individuals which rarely extends to a socially common standard and is therefore unmeasurable. Put simply, we as individuals presume a lot regarding how much our individual values are shared, but we do so in the face of daily refutation from the evidence of others' behaviour that we should.

 

When it comes to the thief you refer to who availed of your then relationship to extort $300 from your person you have therefore hit the nail on the head with regard to why talk of "karma" (and many other individually subjective assumptions regarding justice) are largely superfluous when compared to the reality of how people behave and what might happen subsequently. For you the experience was understandably "bad" and therefore you wish something equivalently "bad" should come her way. But for her the experience might have been exquisitely "good" in which case, according to what is euphemistically called karmic "philosophy", she has every right to expect goodness to be a feature of the effect her action has caused. The truth however is that her action may or may not initiate a causal sequence resulting in something happening at all, there is no way to objectively anticipate that such an effect should it happen be "good" or "bad", and given her apparent disregard for socially standard moral principles, will most likely never become a cause for anything (except irritation to you when you think about it).

 

So my advice to you would be that, if you really want to dwell on this event and not simply put it down to experience, you should approach the subject in the manner which talk of "karma" subverts - that of justice and injustice. If her action results in a heightened sense of justice in you, and if that in turn leads you to behave in a way which enhances the possibility of justice for you and others around you, then - karma aside - you have taken some logical and worthwhile steps towards deriving benefit from the otherwise "bad" experience. The psychics and delusional idiots can call it what they want and ascribe your action to whatever irrational or supernatural "force" they want, but in reality you have just proved yourself a social animal and done what (to our great benefit) many other individuals have done before you - translated an individually subjective experience into a common social principle whose adoption benefits everyone.

 

More practical advice: never extend a loan without demanding some form of collateral (with girlfriends this can be quite fun collateral too). But then you've probably worked that bit out for yourself already!

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There are six broad

Quote:

There are six broad categories into which matter can be divided

Six? There are just two. Quarks and leptons.

EDIT: Quarks and leptons are both elementary fermions, but I would be hesitant to say that anything which obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics is "matter" whereas anything obeying Bose-Einstein statistics is a force carrier (a boson) although this is usually the case. The distinction between the two is not often clear, and will probably be resolved with the formation of a unified field theory.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Six? There are just

Quote:

Six? There are just two. Quarks and leptons.

 

I think you misunderstand my statement, DG, and have assumed "divided" to mean identifying constituent parts and not, as intended, the accepted categories into which states of matter are divided. Phases, in other words, and not components.

 

The six I had in mind were solid, liquid, gas, low-energy states (superconductors, superfluids, Boss-Einstein condensates), high-energy states (plasma, quark-guon plasma) and other states (Rydberg matter, degenerate matter etc).

 

Note the conspicuous omission of psychic "etheric matter" from both of our lists however. That, after all was the point of the statement though I thank you for pointing out my other unintentional omission - clarity sufficient to deter pedantry.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
To classify matter based on

To classify matter based on thermodynamic states is misleading, because those are properties that are the result of the total energy of the system, not innate properties of the particles themselves. That is why, in general, we do not classify matter on the basis of phase (this is not a property of the individual constituents).

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I agree. However when

I agree. However when dealing with people who think that a blithe interjection of phrases such as "etheric matter" into (what is meant to be) a sensible discussion is an acceptable tactic, one should at least attempt to wean them from their stupidity and start with the traditional classifications.

 

Though based on thermodynamic context the same classifications also have their origin in early observational science and represent a significant step in humanity's ability to derive understanding based on rational deduction - as opposed to inventive claptrap which feigns explanation and thereby diverts comprehension from fact.

 

The alternative approach - jumping several cognitive leaps ahead of what they are capable of - tends to have the effect of entrenching them in their stupidity, their "logic" being that if the counter-argument is nonsensical to their ability to think, then the equally nonsensical argument spawned by their ignorance has, by inference (theirs, not logic's) equal validity.

 

I am sure you will agree that at least two candidates in the thread already require such disabusement. Jumping in lepton-first however is not the way to do it - and sadly so, I agree.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote: The study of

Nordmann wrote:
The study of matter does not have to be sidetracked into delusional notions of "etheric matter" in order to hold its fascination. There are six broad categories into which matter can be divided (and several intermediary definitions), none of which prove, support or even suggest that the ill-informed delusional guesswork of so-called "psychics" has any business being inserted into a logical discussion based on fact. "Etheric matter" has all the provenance therefore of any other perversion of language so-called "psychics" employ to promote their fallacies - ie. none.
This is why I mentioned the recent scientific discovery of completely unknown space radiation never detected before, which may be a part of the etheric world we're looking for. I think it's probable, and that with continuing scientific development, the evidence will increase.

 

Nordmann wrote:
People who engage in the promotion of such delusional quack perversions of science are, in my view, theists in all but name. What they are doing on this forum, which explicitly excludes such rubbish-laden foolery in its stated remit, makes me wonder why this site bothers to make the regulation at all.
Nice rhetorics, but what is your goal? Is it to be rude and arrogant? To hinder any possible discussion and finding solutions together? I see you have no understanding of my situation. This is in a clear contradiction to how the founders of this website works, that they had been a Christians themselves a long time and then they became atheists, so they know these two sides very well and they really care about the people. Also, you seem to have a naive idea of an evidence. We have to live in a world, where evidence doesn't magically become objective, but it takes a lot of work to make it objective. You don't do that work by yourself, but you hinder others from doing it. As you probably don't see, I am never dogmatic about anything, I only say that something is my repeated, verified personal experience, (the etheric matter for example) and that other people are free to do this and this to attempt to repeat (and thus confirm) that personal experience for themselves, if they care enough about the topic. Is that clear?

Perhaps you could specify, what do you really mean by theist, then we can see if it fits. Otherwise, it's just an empty word, an emotions talking out of you. It reminds me of some Christian podcasts, their rants also are full of such an empty words, which affects nobody but other Christians.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
A brave, if stupid, attempt

A brave, if stupid, attempt to counter ration with subjective crap - as usual. Let's take the central planks of your defence and look at them closely.

 

You claim your mention of "completely unknown space radiation never detected before" justifies your entirely subjectively-arrived-at inference that this must then represent "a part of the etheric world" of which you are so fond. Now, for a start you will have to explain your tendency to assume that anything "hitherto unknown" represents any part of your particular fantasy. This is subjectiveness gone mad, and an indicator that much else is wrong with the way you think. In my opinion it is, at best, a severe impediment to your recovering from delusion and, at worst, a sort of curse to be saddled with since the false rationale you employ is essentially that every new scientific discovery accelerates your descent into stupidity.

 

This would all be bad enough were it not for your gullible inclination however to see "scientific discoveries" where they don't exist - and a part of that problem must undoubtedly be your willingness (as is evident from the source of the quoted article) to "learn" what is happening in the world of science through the distorted prism of publications with an invested interest in propagating stupidity. In this case the publication was the website of "Share International Magazine", a magazine which boldly claims to "... bring together two major directions of contemporary thought ― the political and the spiritual." The article in question not only completely misrepresents the New Scientist in that it confuses the magazine's own articles investigatiing dark matter (and the ongoing refutations of its existence) with "unknown radiation" but then commits the unpardonable crime of pretending that its claptrap ramblings have a place in the debate.

 

You then, after insinuating that it is I who am impeding learning and not you, make the claim that I have no understanding of your "situation". I am afraid I do, having spent all too much of my life in the unfortunate but necessary position of having to correct fallacies propounded by people like you. Believe me, in doing so I have built up both an accurate and useful appreciation of your "situation" and can tell you that it is not as unique as you seem to think. In fact states of ignorance represent sadly a norm and while its manifestations might differ subtly in the afflicteds' choice of presentation, the underlying stupidity is a regrettable constant.

 

Quote:

We have to live in a world, where evidence doesn't magically become objective, but it takes a lot of work to make it objective. You don't do that work by yourself, but you hinder others from doing it

 

The extent of your stupidity is then conveniently revealed by the above remark, made apparently without the slightest sense of irony (again due to ignorance) that it is not I nor people like me who impede the "work" in question but inane and perverse pseudo-science masquerading as the real thing.

 

You claim not be dogmatic, which would be admirable if it were true. However being dogmatic is not your problem, is it? Instead you reveal your problem absolutely succinctly in your next sentences:

 

Quote:

I only say that something is my repeated, verified personal experience, (the etheric matter for example) and that other people are free to do this and this to attempt to repeat (and thus confirm) that personal experience for themselves, if they care enough about the topic.

 

Here you claim that etheric matter (sic) is one of the things which constitute "your personal experience" and that others are free to "attempt to repeat (and thus confirm)" your personal experience for themselves.

 

You really can't see the stupidity there, can you? That personal experience itself is not enough to establish scientific fact - not by a long shot - should be plain enough. When that is compounded with the arrogance of inviting others to share your delusion of confirmation makes it into a far larger problem of course. Then you have become something worse than any simple dogmatist, you have become a proselytiser of bunkum.

 

And that's where the theist bit comes in, in case you haven't yet figured out such a simple and obvious analogy. That you choose not to have a supernaturally enhanced characterisation of a human as the object of your delusion does not make your delusion any more benign, or any less likely to potentially sabotage other people's quest for knowledge. That is the crime which theists share with all other purveyors of crapology pretending to be reasoned fact, and it is yours too.

 

You are the enemies of intelligence, whether you know it or not. Stated simply, you and they are liars. You lie to yourselves, which is understandable given the nature of your problem and almost forgiveable on that basis. But what is not forgiveable is that you lie even louder and with more conviction to others, probably simply to help reinforce the tenuous fallacies with which your intellect has been absorbed. This cannot mitigate your error however, nor alas does it negate its effects.

 

You reek of dishonesty, even when you are trying pathetically to justify it - in fact especially so. Just bear in mind that you are ultimately fooling no one except yourself.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:There are no

Nordmann wrote:


There are no "forces" (or even "fources" ) in the physical universe that apply themselves to satisfying the human desire that justice should prevail. Nor are there any that "control" a pattern perceived by humans which excludes random action.

I LOL'd quite hard when I read that.

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I've heard

Luminon wrote:

I've heard about that, though a bit more in detail.  But to detect these forces scientifically, we would need like 100 - 200 more years of scientific development. Let's see a small example of this: If you are familiar with the theory of subtle worlds...

Why is it that you always asume science is the one that is behind? Maybe it's your world view that is 100-200 years behind...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why is it that you

Quote:

Why is it that you always asume science is the one that is behind? Maybe it's your world view that is 100-200 years behind...

You not only hit the nail on the head, you hit it so hard it cracked it right in half. This is precisely what we are talking about. These ideas of aetheric matter and "levels" of substance and so forth have been around for centuries. To the sensibility of a modern physicist, they are complete garbage for a perfectly good reason. To a physicist, it is anathema to have to introduce disparate physical concepts to explain observed phenemona. Solid physical theories are those whose theoretical grounding have the most explanatory capacity without the introduction of superfluous concepts. For centuries the introduction of such concepts was unavoidable because our understanding of reality was not complete enough for us to be able to link them. Thus, for example, when the inhabitants of Magnesia noticed that lodestones exhibited highly peculiar attraction and repulsion, and that one of the most peculiar aspects was the fact that when a lodestone was snapped in half, each half still exhibited the same polarity, the idea of "magnetism" was born. And that was essentially how it was for over 1000 years. We had a disparate physical concept of "magnetism" to explain the behavior of lodestones. Naturally, such a conceptually arbitrary notion that is needed to explain something so specific sticks out like a sore thumb in a compendium of physics. It was for that reason that the two unification events that forged the discipline of electrodynamics are regarded as such vast achievements in physics. There is no longer in the compendium of our understanding such a thing called "magnetism". It is a phenomenon incorporated into a complete theory of electrodynamics which explains essentially everything we see around us. There have only been four great unification events in the history of physics, and there is only room for one more. The first was those of the mental giants Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo and Descartes. All of modern physics begins with the work these five men did on motion. They were the first to formulate a unified mechanical theory to explain why objects behaved the way they did. The breadth and scope of their explanations had been unparalleled in human history up until the revolution they created. Suddenly, a vast array of disparate concepts were explained by three laws. So great was this achievement that it is difficult to articulate precisely how vast their cognitive leaps were for their time. The next and equally impressive achievement is laid at the feet of Oersted, Ampere and Faraday. Up until their work, magnetism as previously mentioned was held to be a peculiar property of lodestones. But through very careful observation they swept that notion aside, making the crucial discovery that moving charge produces magnetism and formed the basis of modern electrodynamics, the only complete physical theory to date.

The third is perhaps the most remarkable as it was sparked by one man and merged the disciplines of electrodynamics and optics and paved way for Relativity. James Clerk Maxwell (after correcting Ampere's Law) discovered (via his crucial correction) the wave solutions to the equations of electrodynamics (now called the Maxwell equations) as the speed of light. He did that and showed that the laws of optics (known for centuries) could be derived from these equations. In an instant, two separate physical disciplines presumed to be entirely different and dealing with totally different phenomena vanished and were replaced with a single one. And finally, the fourth great unification in the history of physics is an achievement which belongs to three men, one of which is well known here. They are Weinberg, Salam and Glashow. By the time of their work, our complete understanding of physics had successfully incorporated every physical phenomenon into four fundamental forces, and with the formation of electroweak gauge theory they pared that four down to three. That is where we stand now.

So there is only room for one more unification event. With the formation of a unified field theory there will be no more disparate physical phenomenon. This doesn't mean we will know all there is to know about reality but it does mean that we will be finished in terms of explaining the elementary physical basis for all known physical phenomena.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Ahem...Umm... How long do we

Ahem...

Umm... How long do we have to wait?  (Asked by the squeaky voiced, shy kid at the back of the class.)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Luminon



spike.barnett wrote:

Luminon wrote:

I've heard about that, though a bit more in detail.  But to detect these forces scientifically, we would need like 100 - 200 more years of scientific development. Let's see a small example of this: If you are familiar with the theory of subtle worlds...

Why is it that you always asume science is the one that is behind? Maybe it's your world view that is 100-200 years behind...

Because the science is an in-depth knowledge, which for example allows us to know it's subject mathemathically, to replicate it

any time

we want, to base a wide array of technologies on it, and so on. Something scientifically understood means really thoroughly understood. At the same time, we can not move further in research without such a substantial background, this is why it's rather a slow and diffcult process, but very rewarding. My worldview is indeed quite old, (timeless, better said) but some scientists are just starting to re-discover it in science. For now, it's not a mainstream, but it's becoming more popular. I'm not afraid of that change, the history is written by winners, and the history of science is written by those who gave a results. Thus, this new trend will hold only if it will prove to be meaningful.



Deludedgod: You're right, but my worldview is not meant to compete with science, but to cooperate. It's meant to turn an attention to more of unknown phenomena, which then can be explained by the well-proven scientific method. My knowledge is so complex, because it's rather a practitioner's guidebook, not a scientific analysis. There are some mentions of an one underlying principle (a sub-atomary particles forming everything, called simply "light" ) but that's not much useful for a typical student.



Nordmann wrote:
You claim your mention of "completely unknown space radiation never detected before" justifies your entirely subjectively-arrived-at inference that this must then represent "a part of the etheric world" of which you are so fond.
No, no no no and no. Notice the part of a sentence "which may be a part of the". There is no definite claim, but you allow yourself to see between lines more than there is.


Nordmann wrote:
  Now, for a start you will have to explain your tendency to assume that anything "hitherto unknown" represents any part of your particular fantasy. This is subjectiveness gone mad, and an indicator that much else is wrong with the way you think. In my opinion it is, at best, a severe impediment to your recovering from delusion and, at worst, a sort of curse to be saddled with since the false rationale you employ is essentially that every new scientific discovery accelerates your descent into stupidity.
I don't have a tendency to assume that - I assume that it might be a part of....whatever. No definite claim. Also, that my particular fantasy is not my particular fantasy, it's a complex worldview which can be applied on a problems from the areas of psychology, philosophy, politics, religion, healthcare, and so on. This is not subjective as you imagine, this large paradigm remains consistent despite of it's multiple authors and contributors over a hundred years. So far, applying it in practice worked. There are surely an alternative explanations, but they are not compactly expressible as a theory, which makes them not optimal. Better said, if you find an easy rationale to explain a paranormal phenomenona hundred times, then you will have a hundred of unrelated explanations, which will give no further progress - they will only dismiss the original questions. A good theory should give some progress.
 

Nordmann wrote:
This would all be bad enough were it not for your gullible inclination however to see "scientific discoveries" where they don't exist - and a part of that problem must undoubtedly be your willingness (as is evident from the source of the quoted article) to "learn" what is happening in the world of science through the distorted prism of publications with an invested interest in propagating stupidity. In this case the publication was the website of "Share International Magazine", a magazine which boldly claims to "... bring together two major directions of contemporary thought ― the political and the spiritual." The article in question not only completely misrepresents the New Scientist in that it confuses the magazine's own articles investigatiing dark matter (and the ongoing refutations of its existence) with "unknown radiation" but then commits the unpardonable crime of pretending that its claptrap ramblings have a place in the debate.
Well, what can I say? I obviously have a better opinion on SI, than you. I don't even understand what the paragraph is all about. Your writing style is highly refined, but not easy to read.

Nordmann wrote:
You then, after insinuating that it is I who am impeding learning and not you, make the claim that I have no understanding of your "situation". I am afraid I do, having spent all too much of my life in the unfortunate but necessary position of having to correct fallacies propounded by people like you. Believe me, in doing so I have built up both an accurate and useful appreciation of your "situation" and can tell you that it is not as unique as you seem to think. In fact states of ignorance represent sadly a norm and while its manifestations might differ subtly in the afflicteds' choice of presentation, the underlying stupidity is a regrettable constant.
Actually, you admitted that you always saw the problem from your own position, never proverbially walking a mile in the other person's shoes. Or wasn't it always the case? I would expect to find something good about everyone, presenting someone's strictly negative picture seems short-sighted to me. This is why I'm not sure if your judgement was always correct. Again, declaring someone stupid is not the most diplomatic thing to do. Did it ever work in your plentiful practice? Wait. This is interesting. Could you please share some stories?

 

Nordmann wrote:
The extent of your stupidity is then conveniently revealed by the above remark, made apparently without the slightest sense of irony (again due to ignorance) that it is not I nor people like me who impede the "work" in question but inane and perverse pseudo-science masquerading as the real thing.
That's interesting. Here in Europe we have an opposite problem, a scientific authorities not allowing any funds on an innovative research. But describing it closer would be just as offensive, as your description is, though it is a logical assumption, based on an information available to me.

 

Nordmann wrote:
Here you claim that etheric matter (sic) is one of the things which constitute "your personal experience" and that others are free to "attempt to repeat (and thus confirm)" your personal experience for themselves.

You really can't see the stupidity there, can you? That personal experience itself is not enough to establish scientific fact - not by a long shot - should be plain enough. When that is compounded with the arrogance of inviting others to share your delusion of confirmation makes it into a far larger problem of course. Then you have become something worse than any simple dogmatist, you have become a proselytiser of bunkum.

*rolling eyes upwards* Of course a personal experience is not enough. But a multiple personal experiences are a statistic material. Statistics is a science too. If something is able to cause an identic personal experience, then there may be actually something substantial happening. Then we can try to make a shared, mutual experience, to find out if we, all the test subjects see the same thing. If yes, then it may be an objective phenomenon. This is where a real scientist comes in, and receives and verifies the gathered data. A scientist then applies the scientific method, that's a routine. Is there anything unclear about it?

 

Nordmann wrote:
You are the enemies of intelligence, whether you know it or not. Stated simply, you and they are liars. You lie to yourselves, which is understandable given the nature of your problem and almost forgiveable on that basis. But what is not forgiveable is that you lie even louder and with more conviction to others, probably simply to help reinforce the tenuous fallacies with which your intellect has been absorbed. This cannot mitigate your error however, nor alas does it negate its effects.

You reek of dishonesty, even when you are trying pathetically to justify it - in fact especially so. Just bear in mind that you are ultimately fooling no one except yourself.

Uhm, what is my problem, specifically? I don't remember being indoctrinated, or being under any kind of pressure. I have two brothers who were left to freely pursue another interests which they like more. I've had a happy childhood, no trauma to cause this 'delusion'. So where is the cause? I also have no unusual fears from death, God, women, spiders, and so on.
The best as I can say, the basis of my worldview is essentially my consciousness and perception, which is and always was different than the most of people have. I was always tempted to find an explanation for it, and for things which I've seen. Neither religion nor science gave me an explanation, but still I'm attracted by the science's ability to explain things. That's my story, in short. What is dishonest in there?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
What a load of crap. Ok, so

What a load of crap.

 

Ok, so you admit you're stupider than your two brothers, and that for all your wishful thinking that science will catch up on you on the basis of similar fools to you sharing your exact "experience" (which as yet has obviously never happened) but which someday will prove you right and rational people wrong, no progress has been made on that front either.

 

Take your lies somewhere else. You are pathetic.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Uhm, what is my

Quote:

Uhm, what is my problem, specifically?

 

I nearly missed that.

 

You are a liar. You talk bullshit and you presume it is the equal of rational opinion and debate. You equate your ill-conceived and badly elucidated notions with scientific theory and presume that you trump that theory on every occasion with your subjectively personal observations grounded in misunderstanding and abject ignorance (which you stupidly think of as "theory" ). You mangle logic with the same dismissive abandon with which you disdain fact. You childishly want the universe to revolve around you. You want everyone to view life through the adolecent prism which you are too stupid to realise is of your own manufacture. You, in your delusional fantasy, think you are not delusional but that everyone who embraces truth is.

 

You are a liar. And a liar of the most terminally stupid kind. You lie to yourself.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:For now, it's not a

Quote:

For now, it's not a mainstream, but it's becoming more popular.

It is? Having worked with scientists all over the world, I can say that this is nonsense. You can't even specify what your "worldview" is and why these superfluous and useless notions you introduce should be considered at all. To most people working in any scientific discipline, especially physics these notions, as I said, are anathema.

Quote:

You're right, but my worldview is not meant to compete with science

You keep making these claims of extravagant nonsense that cannot even be meaningfully investigated, claim that you somehow have a more advanced understanding of the nature of reality than our current scientific one (which is the most rigorous and well founded in all human history) and then you claim that all these superflous concepts and entities exist which are not part of any meaningful scientific framework. Since you are making claims about the nature of reality which are directly contrary to scientific understanding, you are competing with science and losing badly because your assertions are  ill-formulated. A concept must make sense before it can even begin to fulfill testable predictions. And please don't try to outmanuevre me by claiming that you are special and that science will eventually catch up. An idea is only as good as its testability. Your continued special pleading fallacies effective demolish the idea that the notions you are trying to put forth from ever coming under the gaze of interested science because there is no way to gather valid data. The scientific community at large is and will continue to be uninterested in such ill-formed criteria.

Quote:

There are some mentions of an one underlying principle (a sub-atomary particles forming everything, called simply "light" ) but that's not much useful for a typical student.

Yes, and it's complete garbage too. As any student of physics will tell you, the more concepts being united under a unified theory (like mechanics, electrodynamics, electroweak gauge etc.) the harder and more brutal the mathematics become. Newtonian mechanics were extended by Lagrange and Hamilton and Euler (and later Stokes and Navier) the result being, prior to Relativity, a complete formulation able to describe the translational, oscillatory, rotational and orbital motions of rigid bodies, continuous fluids and point particles. This formulation was difficult enough mathematically but as any student will tell you, the modern vector formulation of electrodynamics is much harder, as you found out in the other thread where, in order to explain the nonsense of aether, I invoked the Green's function for the d'Alembert and Jefimenko's equation. Gauge theory is even harder and is one of the most brutal areas of mathematical physics, because fields that can operate under gauge transforms are undetermined to the addition of particular gauges making the obtainment of physical solutions very, very hard. So the notion that these purveyors of nonsense have managed to formulate a correct unified principle of physics is farfetched.

Quote:

There are surely an alternative explanations, but they are not compactly expressible as a theory, which makes them not optimal.

Do not insult the intellect of everyone present! Firstly, you throw out these vague and glittering generalities pertaining to your supposed "extremely complex worldview" acting as though this will impress anyone here, then you have the gall to suppose such things could even begin to be considered a "theory". For something to be called a "theory" it must meet a battery of conditions none of which you have bothered with, so you can't even begin to make the claim that what you propose is superior to "alternative theories" insofar as nobody knows what the hell it is you are proposing and why the label theory deserves to be applied to whatever this is. You have to work to get something called a theory.

Quote:

Better said, if you find an easy rationale to explain a paranormal phenomenona hundred times, then you will have a hundred of unrelated explanations

This is both false and insulting. The concept of a "paranormal explanation" is a contradiction in terms. And the real explanations that fundamentally lie in human psychology are hardly unrelated. They are closely knit. Whole ideas in psychology have been coined on the basis of investigation of the genuine psychological basis behind paranormal claims. The idea of a double blind test arose when it was shown that dowsers claiming their abilities were incapable of detecting water when the test was blinded. It is for that reason that the notion is so important. Time and time again, these closely knit explanations have not only served better than paranormal hogwash but given insight into whole disciplines such as cognitive psychology and evolutionary cognitive neuroscience. That's why we have such things as double blind tests, and for such trials involving such claimed abilities by the vast array of paranormal hacks, this method is the only valid method to test such claims. No submission to double blind tests means that not only is your explanation not even considered (and rightly so), your data is completely invalid so there really isn't anything to explain as there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis. This is true of any sampling-based data gathering and the entire field would be rendered useless without it. If you think you are special and that your magical claims are held to higher standards and especially that the presence of skeptics taints the experiment then you might as well give up hope of being noticed by professional statisticians and scientists.

Quote:

Here in Europe we have an opposite problem, a scientific authorities not allowing any funds on an innovative research.

You are surely joking. The European scientific institutions are among the best in the world. In particle physics they lead the way with CERN. Europe has a tremendous scientific body and pursues highly innovative and ultra-advanced research in particle physics, molecular and evolutionary biology, nuclear physics, genetics (especially in the UK). "Rejection of your assertions" is not synonymous with "blocking innovative research". Your vague, meaningless propositions, and countless special pleading fallacies are utterly unacceptable to any rigorous scientific standard and for that reason you can never expect to get off the ground in that regard so you might as well just give up on that front.

Quote:

But a multiple personal experiences are a statistic material

 In trials of this sort we begin with experimenters and a group of subjects. The experimenters need to measure and quantify certain attributes about the subject sample population in order to put forth valid data. If the experimenter is testing something like the effects of a drug then the trials must be blinded to both the subject and the experimenter so that shifts from the null hypothesis cannot be put down to observer bias. That's the essence of double blinding. If the subject population claims to have certain "experiences" then...well what? First of all, it isn't even clear what the experimenter is supposed to be quantifying. If a sample population claimed to having particular "experiences" then the first thing the experimenter asks is "So what?" because an experimenter has to have something to measure and he's supposed to have a set of data from which conclusions can be drawn. The latter part requires the blinding. But it isn't even clear what the subjects and experimenters are being blinded to. In a normal randomized trial with real variables the subjects are blinded to their part in the control set. In a double blind trial the experimenters are also blinded to the control group. All they know is the frequency of the controlled subjects. You've just thrown some nonsense and expected it to be tested. What is there to test? What is being randomized? What is being controlled? What are the subjects blinded to? How does this blinding remove observer bias? If you go to an experimenter and claim that you and a sample population have had particular experiences you believe validate paranormal claims the experimenter is going to say "so what? There's nothing to test and quantify".

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:Why

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Why is it that you always assume science is the one that is behind? Maybe it's your world view that is 100-200 years behind...

You not only hit the nail on the head, you hit it so hard it cracked it right in half.

Thanks. I like to think I'm an astute observer. I must say though, I have seen you drive the nail home many times as well. One of those house flies and bazookas kind of thing.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:spike.barnett

Luminon wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

Luminon wrote:
I've heard about that, though a bit more in detail.  But to detect these forces scientifically, we would need like 100 - 200 more years of scientific development. Let's see a small example of this: If you are familiar with the theory of subtle worlds...

Why is it that you always assume science is the one that is behind? Maybe it's your world view that is 100-200 years behind...

Because the science is an in-depth knowledge, which for example allows us to know it's subject mathematically, to replicate it any time

we want, to base a wide array of technologies on it, and so on. Something scientifically understood means really thoroughly understood. At the same time, we can not move further in research without such a substantial background, this is why it's rather a slow and difficult process, but very rewarding. My worldview is indeed quite old, (timeless, better said) but some scientists are just starting to re-discover it in science. For now, it's not a mainstream, but it's becoming more popular. I'm not afraid of that change, the history is written by winners, and the history of science is written by those who gave a results. Thus, this new trend will hold only if it will prove to be meaningful.

I hope you weren't terribly offended. I like you for the most part. You voice your opinions (as outlandish as they might be) without malice or hate. The problem I have is, as stated before, your assumption that science is lagging. And then almost in the same breath, as pointed out by deluded and others, you construct some "theory" with no possible way to gather evidence or experiment. Theories can not be constructed on  personal experience. You need hard physical evidence to validate a hypothesis. I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinions, just don't express them as though they are fact.

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Karma" is a bunch of

"Karma" is a bunch of crap.

Throughout human history, bad things have happened to good people, and good things have happened to bad people.

We should not mistake the real issue of empathy with the myth of Karma.

So what did the good people who were in the towers and on the planes do in their past?

What did the Jews do to deserve being slaughtered? Even if you don't believe in a diety, "Karma" merely falls into the same gap answer when the simple statement, "Shit happens", will suffice. Good stuff happens and bad stuff happens. Over a long period sample you will see that it is all random and our empathy is what is allowing us to falsely think that there is some magical connection called "Karma".

It is true that humans judge others on their behaivor and we are more conducive to cooperation "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" in fostering getting along. But that is a matter of mere evolution, not superstition.

Good people died in the tsunami for no other reason than the techtonic plates under the ocean caused a massive wave that killed 300,000 people. "Karma" had nothing to do with the successfull hijacking and subsiquent murder of 3,000 people on 9/11. The hijackers were simply mentally theocraticly fucked in the head.

There is no need for superstitious words to discribe natural human behaivor. "Natural" is both good and bad. Cancer is not a result of pink unicorns and neither is weather or crime or war. These are all unfortunate realities of life, but in no way magical.

"Karma" is merely a willfully ignorant word used by people too lazy to observe reality to get to the real answer.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"Karma" is essentially a

"Karma" is essentially a loaded euphemism for the more practical term "social capital".

If you consistently put yourself in a position of doing good things for people, you shouldn't be surprised if eventually someone does something nice in return for you. Mystical types commonly refer to this as "good karma", but there's nothing mystical about it. All you've done is simply accumulate some social capital.

Conversely, if you are consistently in a position of doing bad things - say, stealing money from people - then you shouldn't be surprised if eventually something very bad winds up happening to you. In other words, at some point you may not get away with it and you may wind up in jail. This is typically called "bad karma" - but again, nothing mystical here. By engaging in these acts, you've failed to build up any social capital. Therefore, you have none to spend when you need it.

Stories of child molesters winning the lottery or outstanding citizens dying in car crashes tend to skew this concept, because they are factors of probability that are not affected by the accumulation of social capital. There are plenty of child molesters who do not win the lottery, and there are plenty of outstanding citizens who do not die in firey car crashes.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote: I hope

spike.barnett wrote:
I hope you weren't terribly offended. I like you for the most part. You voice your opinions (as outlandish as they might be) without malice or hate. The problem I have is, as stated before, your assumption that science is lagging. And then almost in the same breath, as pointed out by deluded and others, you construct some "theory" with no possible way to gather evidence or experiment. Theories can not be constructed on  personal experience. You need hard physical evidence to validate a hypothesis. I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinions, just don't express them as though they are fact.
No, I'm not offended at all. In my life I withstood a lot of malice and persecution, (mostly for no big reason) until I learned, that these things can not be faced by revenge, and also not a peaceful passivity. My ideal became a harmlessness and non-violence, and these are virtues requiring activity and a tough stomach. Whenever there is anything which really offends me, then it's something true and I must confront it. If it's not true, then it's simply not about me, but about some unprecise image of me, which the other person has.

Don't get me wrong, but the science is indeed lagging. I'll explain it. It is very, very effective in what it is specialized on, known as the sciences. The scientific discoveries are regularly made and implemented in pieces of technology which are manufactured and distributed all around the world. The science is a great archetype of intelligence. Unfortunately, it is an intelligence in service of insanity. Science gives us a new molecules, substances, materials, methods, informations, and more. But what are these goods used for? Raw materials are mined, processed, advertised, sold, used, thrown out and usually not recycled. In the process, nobody becomes wiser, healthier or happier, rather opposite. The science is a hooker with two pimps - commercialism and politics. The most important science of all - the science of living, happiness, sense of life, is not even considered a scientific problem! The science is a powerful and noble tool, but in a hands of madmen. If you analyze the humanity and it's recorded history from a psychiatrist's point of view, it's a paranoid, delusional and obsessive mass murderer. All good we ever had in our history was done by individuals, a rare exceptions.

No, I don't say to remove the science. I say that we need a radical, global change in all aspects of our worldview. We must stop doing the same old mistakes we always did, we must scientifically discover beyond all doubt who, what, and why we are, only then we will be able to have correct and harmless relationships with each other. The life on Earth it's in stake. The science gave us the bombs, but it didn't give us the sanity to not use them. What is today a scientific solution on the problem of human happiness? An opiate injection. After all, we understand the biochemic mechanism behind that very well. (sarcasm)
I hope that what I wrote is not precise, and that the real situation is better. Or is the life of us all still left on a subjective judgement of obviously insane species?

Returning to the topic, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My evidence were and are mainly in form of events. These events are physical, and are often witnessed by me and someone else. We then make sure that we really saw the same thing. Of course, the event usually happens and then is no more. The only thing what remains is a personal experience, however verified, but even that verification itself is a personal experience. It is something we all base our lives on, we are usually sure that we talked to some person, though we will never see him again and we have no evidence of that dialogue to show to anyone other. But then and there, it was a hard, physical evidence. The problem is, that there is no way how to prove it, unless (if I continue with the simile) we consult it with another people, who also personally saw the 'some person'. This is why the 'personal experience' is so important. It plugs you into a subjective network of mutual understanding. The contradiction between a personal certainity of the event and a total unfamiliarity of it to other people, is very confusing.

You surely know that zen koan, if a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, was there any sound at all? Altering it a little for our purposes, if there falls a tree in a forest, and the only one man who did hear it suddenly gets an amnesia, was there ever that sound?

Good night for now.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

SmallChristian wrote:

Knowledge is power, so if one truely wants to have "good things" happening in their lives, they ought to find a way to increase their chances, as well as have the confidence to get off their ass and get them. 

Fortune favors the brave.

 

 

I warn against such platitudes. I am quite sure that a lot of Nazis made that mistake when they took over Europe.

 

"Brave" is neither good or bad. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and both are "Brave".

All "brave" means is no fear of personal harm in hopes you are doing a greater good. You can be "brave" and wrong at the same time.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: spike.barnett

Brian37 wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

SmallChristian wrote:

Knowledge is power, so if one truely wants to have "good things" happening in their lives, they ought to find a way to increase their chances, as well as have the confidence to get off their ass and get them. 

Fortune favors the brave.

I warn against such platitudes. I am quite sure that a lot of Nazis made that mistake when they took over Europe.

 "Brave" is neither good or bad. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and both are "Brave".

All "brave" means is no fear of personal harm in hopes you are doing a greater good. You can be "brave" and wrong at the same time.

Oxford English Dictionary

Brave:

adjective: having or showing courage.

Favor:

verb 2: work to the advantage of.

Fortune:

noun 4: a large amount of money or assets.

 

Given those definitions, I would take the meaning to be "Those who have the courage to go after what they want are more likely to get it"

In that respect the Nazis support the old adage. How likely would it be for them to take Europe if they sat at home and just thought about what it would be like to invade other countries.

I think you are confusing bravery with moral courage.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Returning to

Luminon wrote:

Returning to the topic, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My evidence were and are mainly in form of events. These events are physical, and are often witnessed by me and someone else. We then make sure that we really saw the same thing. Of course, the event usually happens and then is no more. The only thing what remains is a personal experience, however verified, but even that verification itself is a personal experience. It is something we all base our lives on, we are usually sure that we talked to some person, though we will never see him again and we have no evidence of that dialogue to show to anyone other. But then and there, it was a hard, physical evidence. The problem is, that there is no way how to prove it, unless (if I continue with the simile) we consult it with another people, who also personally saw the 'some person'. This is why the 'personal experience' is so important. It plugs you into a    (Right here!)----> subjective <----(There it is!)    network of mutual understanding. The contradiction between a personal certainity of the event and a total unfamiliarity of it to other people, is very confusing.

You surely know that zen koan, if a tree falls in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, was there any sound at all? Altering it a little for our purposes, if there falls a tree in a forest, and the only one man who did hear it suddenly gets an amnesia, was there ever that sound?

Good night for now.

I'm glad I didn't offend you. Although I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that kind of thinking. I've highlighted the problem for you. I hope you can find it.

And just to play along. The tree makes a sound as long as there is an ear within ear shot. Having amnesia of the event is irrelevant.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Brian37

spike.barnett wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:

SmallChristian wrote:

Knowledge is power, so if one truely wants to have "good things" happening in their lives, they ought to find a way to increase their chances, as well as have the confidence to get off their ass and get them. 

Fortune favors the brave.

I warn against such platitudes. I am quite sure that a lot of Nazis made that mistake when they took over Europe.

 "Brave" is neither good or bad. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and both are "Brave".

All "brave" means is no fear of personal harm in hopes you are doing a greater good. You can be "brave" and wrong at the same time.

Oxford English Dictionary

Brave:

adjective: having or showing courage.

Favor:

verb 2: work to the advantage of.

Fortune:

noun 4: a large amount of money or assets.

 

Given those definitions, I would take the meaning to be "Those who have the courage to go after what they want are more likely to get it"

In that respect the Nazis support the old adage. How likely would it be for them to take Europe if they sat at home and just thought about what it would be like to invade other countries.

I think you are confusing bravery with moral courage.

I am not dissagreeing with that. I am merely warning that there are people without the introspection to combat black and white thinking there are the "Dumb and Dumber" Jim Carrey morons who will missinterpret that as "So you are saying there is a chance".

You can be "brave" in defending a false belief and wind up worm food as well as someone can be "brave" in defending the truth and still be beat down by "brave" people defending absurdity.

Just because you fight for the top spot doesn't mean you are on the right track, it just means you you have no fear of taking the risk. Which is a completly separate issue of assesing the cost benifit of ending up on top.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am not

Brian37 wrote:

I am not dissagreeing with that. I am merely warning that there are people without the introspection to combat black and white thinking there are the "Dumb and Dumber" Jim Carrey morons who will missinterpret that as "So you are saying there is a chance".

You can be "brave" in defending a false belief and wind up worm food as well as someone can be "brave" in defending the truth and still be beat down by "brave" people defending absurdity.

Just because you fight for the top spot doesn't mean you are on the right track, it just means you you have no fear of taking the risk. Which is a completly separate issue of assesing the cost benifit of ending up on top.

I see your point. I'm just saying you generally don't get anywhere by standing still. Weather getting to the top is worth it or not, it probably required some effort on your part to get there. People usually don't end up Physicist or Engineers by accident. I don't think SC is a "Dumb and Dumber" kind of guy, but you're right to say that they exist.

I wasn't really concerned with anyone reading anything more into it, though I can see why you would think they might. The words fortune and brave can certainly conjure up images of the "righteous" waging war on their foes. And I can also see someone reading it as "do whatever it takes."

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'll explain it.If by

Quote:

I'll explain it.

If by explain you mean "to move on an irrelevant tangent" then I suppose you did explain very well. Our original discussion pertained to assertions about the nature of reality and you asserted that science lagged in that regard because it failed to take into account features of reality that you apparently have access to. I pointed out that this was complete nonsense and now you've decided to talk about the employment of scientific discoveries for purposes of your dislike. I would concur with this dislike but that doesn't change the fact that this is a deviation from our original discussion. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand and how you have done anything except sidestep the issue at hand by bringing up something utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, if as you say you

Luminon, if as you say you want "science" to be employed to humankind's and the planet's benefit then this is something we all share. If you want to contribute to this noble process then shut up, go away, and begin to learn something which might be beneficially used to that end.

 

And curb your excessive vanity. It's unpleasant to witness in a person and incredibly tedious to read when committed to text.

 

Adopt the mantra "bullshit holds me back" and don't commit finger to keyboard again until the truth of that aphorism sinks in.

 

If and when you ever recognise the concept of intellectual honesty, let alone achieve it, then you will find that most of the issues with which you have obsessed yourself have in fact been impediments to understanding, not an aid to it.

 

But really - begin with "shut up, go away and learn". Please.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:I'll

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I'll explain it.

If by explain you mean "to move on an irrelevant tangent" then I suppose you did explain very well.

I laughed quite hard when I read that. He's a habitual side-stepper. It's similar to a habitual line-stepper but less offensive.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I'll explain it.

If by explain you mean "to move on an irrelevant tangent" then I suppose you did explain very well.

I laughed quite hard when I read that. He's a habitual side-stepper. It's similar to a habitual line-stepper but less offensive.

Yeah, I have to. Sometimes I just don't have a time to respond, the work takes at least 11 hours per day (8 + breaks, preparation and travel) and then some decent sleep (I've got to get up at 5 AM) and also some helping to keep the house clean. And a good, elaborate post takes hours to write. With such a perspective, even if I have the time, I'm too exhausted.


Yeah, it's a shitty job, but I need money. Makei, the Korean god of work gives me a hard time. Or is it my karma? Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Yeah, I have

Luminon wrote:

Yeah, I have to. Sometimes I just don't have a time to respond, the work takes at least 11 hours per day (8 + breaks, preparation and travel) and then some decent sleep (I've got to get up at 5 AM) and also some helping to keep the house clean. And a good, elaborate post takes hours to write. With such a perspective, even if I have the time, I'm too exhausted.

 

Yeah, it's a shitty job, but I need money. Makei, the Korean god of work gives me a hard time. Or is it my karma? Smiling

I know what you mean. I had a job once that consisted of 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week. I know what it's like to not have time to do anything.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
No, karma does not exist in

No, karma does not exist in a "spiritual" sense. It does have some truth it to its roots, as someone who shuns others will most likely end up shunned themselves, but this is simply cause/effect and human psychology.

Every culture, no matter how small nor big, has their own ideas about right/wrong and what morality consists of. Morality doesn't exist outside of the "collective human conscious". Things just...are.

It's comforting, actually, that nothing cares or watches us and tallies our good and bad deeds.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Karma as it is used in

Karma as it is used in popular parlance implies automatic justice and is therefore a subversive term and incredibly dangerous.

Justice is a principle which requires massive investment on the part of individuals to translate into a socially acceptable workable form and just as much investment to retain. Thinking it "just happens" is stupidity, and stupidity in its most malevolent manifestation too.

It is no coincidence that the society which first refined the concept and adopted it as a religious tenet also developed a rigid caste system and a plethora of inhumane "laws" which consigned many of its less fortunate members to an early and often violent death, barbaric behaviour for which "karma" was employed as partial justification.

Religion. I piss on it.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote: It's

peppermint wrote:
It's comforting, actually, that nothing cares or watches us and tallies our good and bad deeds.
  Actually, there is one being, who does that, who watches you all the time and counts all your deeds, who's sight can not be escaped and to whom you have to justify all that. It's you. For example, even if I agree with my actions at this time and there are seemingly no consequences, by years I may get wiser, see the memories differently, and I can get a feeling of guilt, which then deeply affects my behavior. If your conscience is not such a slaver, then let me congratulatulate you.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.