Which were the smartest?

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Which were the smartest?

 

This is a question for the members who have been around here for a while.

Which have been the most intelligent theists (sic) that have debated here?

Because all I seem to see, are extremely passive aggressive pseudo intellectuals, who suffer from extreme hubris, and are just completely out of touch with reality.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: This is a

redneF wrote:

 

This is a question for the members who have been around here for a while.

Which have been the most intelligent theists (sic) that have debated here?

Because all I seem to see, are extremely passive aggressive pseudo intellectuals, who suffer from extreme hubris, and are just completely out of touch with reality.

The smartest ones were always the ones just a teensy pinch away from being actual atheists. Cpt_Pineapple (now an atheist), Eloise, and a few others that have slipped my mind. Luminon is still around and technically we gave him a theist badge, even though he's more of a mystic.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 None of them.   No

 

None of them.

 

No really. The ones who stand out are the really prolific ones like fonzie, jean chauvin and capoiska. They are just boobs.

 

If you want to get to actual intelligent discussion with a theist, you are gonna have to lurk on a bunch of theist web sites to see who you can get to take the bait. Even then, don't go expecting all that much from them. Sooner or later, the cognitive dissonance comes out and the begin to spout pretty much impossible stuff.

 

Right now, I am waiting for a reply on an Anglican forum from someone who actually posted Pascal's wager as somehow valid. I am asking in the context of Romans 10:9 “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

 

Kinda puts a wet blanket on the whole thing about faking religion and still getting let into heaaven from what I see.

 

There was a guy that a few of us were lurking several weeks ago who was alright. I think the name was pastor bill randalls. Sadly, he figured out what we were doing and posted over here. When they know what the deal is, there is not much point.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 natural wrote:The smartest

 

natural wrote:
The smartest ones were always the ones just a teensy pinch away from being actual atheists. Cpt_Pineapple (now an atheist), Eloise, and a few others that have slipped my mind. Luminon is still around and technically we gave him a theist badge, even though he's more of a mystic.

 

Well, luminon has had the theist badge twice. He made a case for it having been taken off, only to get it put back because of the whole Ben Crème thing.

 

Sadly, some of the better debaters don't show up all that often these days. There are a few who are also officially atheists but are really borderline theists as well. Here are a few names who could turn up at any time:

 

Marquis: He is into crop circles and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 

A. Nony Mouse: Certainly an antisemite. I don't know if he has ever been backed into a corner on holocaust denial but the smart money is that he is likely into that as well.

 

Godman: No actual religion as far as I can tell. Still, anything ever said by a liberal democrat will be accepted uncritically by this dude. He has some strange ideas about how the U. S. civil war began. That and the civil rights act of 1964 being a liberal democrat agenda item (it never was).

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ok, thanks.I didn't think

Ok, thanks.

I didn't think there would be any that were too much brighter.

I've seen many different debates by William Lane Craig, John Atkins, and a few others.

These guys are supposedly the top level 'crusaders' for the Christian 'logic'?

Wow, that's pretty sad.

 

I've tried to get one to go 1 on 1 with me in a debate. But they're simply afraid to.

 

Just for the record, I like Luminon. He's funky and wacky. And I mean that in a nice way. But, I can't deal with his beliefs, at all. I don't have an ounce of 'superstition' in me, at all.

I see him being passionate, and pushy, about his esoteric beliefs, but, I think he's benign. I don't see any 'hate' in him. I might see him getting upset, and even really angry, but, I don't confuse that with 'hating'.

Which is not something I can say about these hard core theists. They are 'haters'.

They have a lot of anger and hate in them. It just oozes out every pore.

They're completely deluded, and toxic.

Ticking time bombs.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Based on how I understand

Based on how I understand "intelligence," some of these apologists and theologians, including some of the theists that use the OA, are quite intelligent. The religion just kind of messes them up in the head on these topics.

Eloise is definitely one of my favorite theist posters here. Cpt_Pineapple was cool too, when she was a theist. Now, she's just even more awesome...except she seems to only post when she's drunk nowadays, lol. I also seem to remember someone with the username, "JustAnotherBeliever;" he was pretty open-minded. Luminon's beliefs can get kind of annoying, but he's a very nice guy, and he has a lot of respect for skepticism.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Based on

butterbattle wrote:

Based on how I understand "intelligence," some of these apologists and theologians, including some of the theists that use the OA, are quite intelligent.

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt. They can be very, very intelligent. The way they articulate their thoughts, and concepts that are difficult to even 'outline' accurately, clearly demonstrate that.

It's just that there is a 'hiccup', for lack of a better term, during their 'stream' of conceptualizations, that always sticks out like a sore thumb to me. And the 'giveaway' for me, is how they react, when you point it out.

Dead giveaway, that they're aware of it. Which clearly indicates that they intentionally 'disconnect' from the cognitive dissonance, and then 'resume' being rational, after the 'disconnect'.

butterbattle wrote:
The religion just kind of messes them up in the head on these topics.

Agreed.

butterbattle wrote:
Eloise is definitely one of my favorite theist posters here.

I'll have to look for that poster.

butterbattle wrote:
Cpt_Pineapple was cool too, when she was a theist. Now, she's just even more awesome...except she seems to only post when she's drunk nowadays, lol.

My only experience with her, was that Pussy Cat Dolls thread...lol

I couldn't align with her, and some of the other stuff that was said in there, at all.

butterbattle wrote:
I also seem to remember someone with the username, "JustAnotherBeliever;" he was pretty open-minded.

That's cool. I can respect anyone who wants to 'preoccupy' themselves with a 'belief'. Like astrology, for example. Some people preoccupy themselves with it, because of some satisfaction they get from it.

Religion is no different.

Theists can jump up and down all they want, but, it doesn't change the fact, that astrology, and theology/theism, are parallels.

 

I have a business partnership with a guy in Texas. He's a full blown born again Christian. But.....he keeps it to himself. We were partners for quite a while till I found out that he was a 'fundy'.

His only issue with me is, (and he never nags me about it), is that I take the name of his Lord in vain, and that I've had a lot of pre-marital sexual partners. Other than that, he thinks I'm tops, and would trust me more than his own brother (who is also a born again).

butterbattle wrote:
Luminon's beliefs can get kind of annoying, but he's a very nice guy, and he has a lot of respect for skepticism.

Ya, honestly, I think he's a hard guy to dislike. But, I can only take him in small doses when he really gets esoteric...lol

I just have a hard time believing he's totally sincere, yanno?  He seems too bright, to not be more skeptical himself. He kinda makes me wonder if I'm being 'Punk'd'.

Again, with all due respect. He really seems pretty cool.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think probably

 

 

Paisley - his theism was not straight christianity. His was a platonist argument with the usual epistemologist position of an underlying immaterial supported by arguments from complexity and certainly, ignorance. He insisted the vagaries of the material showed reality was not what we thought it was - indicating the material at some quantum level was immaterial, or at least very weird.

Not sure we could call Eloise a theist in the accepted sense of the word. On almost all things we'd be in full agreement with Eloise but rather than stop short at a position of not knowing, she did admit to leaving the door open to a pantheistic possibility. Personally, I don't have a problem with such a position honestly contended, though it annoyed Blake no end.

There have been a couple of others. Trouble is we all pile on top of theists until they can take no more. Jean Chauvin was the sort of theist that lasts here because he enjoyed a scrap. He had more than a little of the Poe about him, Jean. But it was fun while it lasted. Fonzie, on the other hand, is an institution, a sort of fundamentalist black hole into which we fall at some point. One day we should all get onto Fonzie's thread at once and give him a bird's nest.

There was Billy Bob, too. He was a delight to have around.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley - his theism was not straight christianity. His was a platonist argument with the usual epistemologist position of an underlying immaterial supported by arguments from complexity and certainly, ignorance. He insisted the vagaries of the material showed reality was not what we thought it was - indicating the material at some quantum level was immaterial, or at least very weird.

That sounds like someone who could be interesting and fun to interact with.

Atheistextremist wrote:
Not sure we could call Eloise a theist in the accepted sense of the word. On almost all things we'd be in full agreement with Eloise but rather than stop short at a position of not knowing, she did admit to leaving the door open to a pantheistic possibility. Personally, I don't have a problem with such a position honestly contended, though it annoyed Blake no end.

All of this 'atheist' and 'theist' stuff, is very, very new to me.

I didn't consider myself 'anything' other than 'non religious', till a few years ago, and then a good friend, told me I was 'Agnostic'. And I just said "Meh....whatever..".

I didn't even look it up.

I did have a prejudice against atheists, but, it was a prejudice out of ignorance, because I never cared to even look up the definition. People, just made them out to be militant to me.

It reminded me of vegans, who just go fucking apesh1t, because someone eats something that had a mother.

 

I thought atheists were 'militant', in that, they were simply 'dogmatic' about naked assertions, concerning 'the origins of the universe, and how life began'.

When I always was simply skeptical of any mere theories, and claims, that could have alternate explanations.

That's still my position, on everything except theistic deities.

Deist God, Pantheist God, Spinoza's God....meh....they're metaphorical, as far as I can tell, so, I have no issue, or interest in them. To me, it seems like it's a different way to say "Mother Nature".

Atheistextremist wrote:
Jean Chauvin was the sort of theist that lasts here because he enjoyed a scrap. He had more than a little of the Poe about him, Jean. But it was fun while it lasted.

I didn't find he had any redeeming qualities. And his delusions of even being 'logical' were amusing. He's simply off his nut.

Atheistextremist wrote:
Fonzie, on the other hand, is an institution, a sort of fundamentalist black hole into which we fall at some point. One day we should all get onto Fonzie's thread at once and give him a bird's nest.

I'm suspicious of completely obtuse characters like him. They smell like they could be a total ruse.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
In my school we teachers

In my school we teachers always confused proper atheists with people who can only drink and fuck and don't care about religion at all.
Now I know that atheists are more concerned with religion than most religious people.

On-topic. Most theistic arguments have been taken down by proper atheist debaters. But if a theist like that Jean Chauvou or something (I'm bad at names Laughing out loud) spout an enormous wall of these very systematic philosophy-things, I can't say I can beat them. Of course, they won't convince me, since I don't understand the reasoning (and that's what it's meant to do: convince the others).

But at school, most of the people will be very surprised to find out I know more of the Bible than they do. And mostly it's origins, similar myths, contradictions, etc.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 726
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

None of them.

 

No really. The ones who stand out are the really prolific ones like fonzie, jean chauvin and capoiska. They are just boobs.

 

LMAO!! Smartest theist is the biggest oxymoron I've ever heard!! It's like saying tallest dwarf!!

WHY do theists even show up here?? There's no way in hell they'd ever convert anyone.

I mean do we hang out at Christian forums?? HELL NO!!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I think they don't realize

I think they don't realize that there is going to be a much higher percentage of above average intellgence among any active atheist site.

So, they come here thinking they are going to post a few posts, and score a couple of easy 'checkmate atheist' victories, and go back to their bible circle jerks and post the links to their intellectual 'triumph'.

 

They obviously haven't been to YouTube, and seen the teenagers who routinely intellectually dismantle, and piss into the necks of 'scholars' like Dr. William Lane Craig, when they tear their heads off.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:I

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:
I mean do we hang out at Christian forums?? HELL NO!!

 

Umm, I do.  It can be quite fun to mess with them.

 

I like to post on doctrinal points and then present technically correct but missing the general idea type stuff.  The responses are always a hoot!

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That would be pleasurable

 

Sometimes I think some of our theists are actually atheists pulling our tails. We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 There was another theist

 There was another theist on here, I think Bob and butter had a lengthy argument with him... Mak something... the thread was regarding infinite universes, I'll dig it up in my history.  He seemed quite intelligent.

Edit:

Here it is 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28407#new

His name was Mak Thorpe.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 726
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sometimes I think some of our theists are actually atheists pulling our tails. We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

 

We should show up and post as JESUS and tell them the TRUTH is Jesus is nothing but a delusion in their mind and they need to go to the looney bin right away, get medication, & seek help!!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: We

Atheistextremist wrote:

 We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

That would be great for laughs.

I'd rather spend my time creating an internet trail, proving their stupidity and ignorance, debunking their complete fallacies, and exposing their 'prophets' as the greedy, lying, con artists they are.

IOW, really put a dent in their day...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF

redneF wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

That would be great for laughs.

I'd rather spend my time creating an internet trail, proving their stupidity and ignorance, debunking their complete fallacies, and exposing their 'prophets' as the greedy, lying, con artists they are.

IOW, really put a dent in their day...

Well tag some Jesus sites and the dogs of doom will follow you to the feast. Yum Yum

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:redneF

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

That would be great for laughs.

I'd rather spend my time creating an internet trail, proving their stupidity and ignorance, debunking their complete fallacies, and exposing their 'prophets' as the greedy, lying, con artists they are.

IOW, really put a dent in their day...

Well tag some Jesus sites and the dogs of doom will follow you to the feast. Yum Yum

 

I'm not even kidding. I will.

I've been a 'mind my own fucking business' kind of guy my whole fucking life, till a few months ago, when I came across this site, and started to really look into this religious insanity.

These people are fucking batsh1t crazy insane ticking time bombs.

Most of them are completely damaged goods.

No problem. They have a limited shelf life.

But, we've got to get their kids and educated them, while they're still a chance for them not to become terminally stoopid.

 

Knowledge is power.

Education is medicine for 'stoopid'.

Information cannot be stopped.

 

It's time to eradicate the disease...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Rednef

 

 

 

                            I agree 100% but we have to et them young and get them to think for themselves;  like we are doing to  Foxhound [Jimmy Prescott] in the other post. Let's keep up the good fight.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sometimes I think some of our theists are actually atheists pulling our tails. We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

 

We should show up and post as JESUS and tell them the TRUTH is Jesus is nothing but a delusion in their mind and they need to go to the looney bin right away, get medication, & seek help!!

I think that going there and act as if you are a theist with a heckload of questions is going to have some of them converted better Laughing out loud Now you will just scare them.
If I were to post: "How did Judas die? Someone said he hang himself, but I always thought God blew him up" and some random christian would come along and try getting the right answer he will find the contradiction himself Laughing out loud


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 726
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios

Thunderios wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sometimes I think some of our theists are actually atheists pulling our tails. We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

 

We should show up and post as JESUS and tell them the TRUTH is Jesus is nothing but a delusion in their mind and they need to go to the looney bin right away, get medication, & seek help!!

I think that going there and act as if you are a theist with a heckload of questions is going to have some of them converted better Laughing out loud Now you will just scare them.
If I were to post: "How did Judas die? Someone said he hang himself, but I always thought God blew him up" and some random christian would come along and try getting the right answer he will find the contradiction himself Laughing out loud

Have you guys seen these 101 contradictions in the bible??  It's so ridiculous it's LAUGHABLE!! I mean HOW can people believe such an obvious scam?? You would think after reading that many people would automatically leave the church!

www.thinkatheist.com/notes/101_Contradictions_in_the_Bible

 

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 Considering the subject

 Considering the subject matter and material they have to work with I would not bother personally.

I have a bit of fun with them and throw in a few points but a serious debate? It's not a real subject.

A debate on how the human mind can conceive and propogate such drivel is much more plausible.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sometimes I think some of our theists are actually atheists pulling our tails. We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

 

I may do that for fun, pick a christian site that actually has a forum and link it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Will have a poke around for a site.

robj101 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sometimes I think some of our theists are actually atheists pulling our tails. We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

 

I may do that for fun, pick a christian site that actually has a forum and link it.

 

I think turning up and furiously arguing contextual interpretations or the archeological complexities of the unfallen walls of Jericho, or a literal interpretation of noah's ark would be a barrel of fun. Pretty sure most of us could talk bible with a typical theist crew. What would be fun too would be turning up as liberals and arguing for gay marriage, freedom of choice in the abortion debate and the application of freewill without constraint as part of the lord's plan. Because He knows what He's about and things will turn out as He has planned...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 There really are no limits

 There really are no limits when you play the religious game. You can "interpret" and make anything you like work in almost any situation.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I think I've discovered

I think I've discovered a real important factor that ties into religious belief.

It appears that many people have been taught very differently about history in schools.

There are major glaring contradictions in European history and American history about more recent history, at the very least...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I think I've

redneF wrote:

I think I've discovered a real important factor that ties into religious belief.

It appears that many people have been taught very differently about history in schools.

There are major glaring contradictions in European history and American history about more recent history, at the very least...

and if the TX school board have their way this generation will be witness to it on a large scale.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Atheistextremist wrote:  

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

robj101 wrote:

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
Sometimes I think some of our theists are actually atheists pulling our tails. We should all choose a christian site, open accounts, select suitably theistic avatars and descend on the flock like ravens upon lambs.

 

I may do that for fun, pick a christian site that actually has a forum and link it.

 

I think turning up and furiously arguing contextual interpretations or the archeological complexities of the unfallen walls of Jericho, or a literal interpretation of noah's ark would be a barrel of fun. Pretty sure most of us could talk bible with a typical theist crew. What would be fun too would be turning up as liberals and arguing for gay marriage, freedom of choice in the abortion debate and the application of freewill without constraint as part of the lord's plan. Because He knows what He's about and things will turn out as He has planned...

 

Well, if you want to do liberal theology, don't let me stop you. However, I play the game differently.

 

I like to go to some forum and do the whole conservative/textual authority thing. Do that across a few threads for a week or so. Some will think that I am an OK kind of guy, others will think that I am over the top but will not speak out because I have cited scriptural authority often.

 

As a former high church Anglican, I can do this better than most. Hell but my confirmation was presided over by the Arch Bishop of North America. That was the first schism of modern times.

 

Anyway, once I have insinuated myself, I pick a fairly short thread where I can have my fun and then I go balls out nuts.

 

Let's take abortion as the topic. Well, we all know that god doesn't like abortion (Job 3:3, Num 12:12, Luke 1:41-44). So god would never harm an unborn baby. God only kills sinners just like he did in Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Let that percolate overnight and see if anyone has anything to say about that. Usually, not as they are OK with citing scriptural evidence. Then drop something like this:

 

Quote:
Uh, guys, I thought a bit more about this one. They were established cities and as such, should have had a few pregnant women, right? Something doesn't add up here. If they were “all male” cities (and we know that people used to do some strange things back then) then OK, god only killed sinners. But if there were breeding women, then god must have killed the unborn and they had not yet sinned.

 

I have read those verses several times and the best that I can come up with is that it was “the men of Sodom” who tried to get into Lot's house. We can know for certain from scriptural authority that there were at least three females there (wife and two virgin daughters).

 

Something is amiss here and since it can't possibly be scriptural, it must be my thinking. I need some help here. What am I missing?

 

If the specific forum is diverse enough, that will get things moving. And I have yet to see a forum that so lacked diversity that people will not get involved in that topic. Once you have that going, you can get as loopy as you want to.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:redneF wrote:I

robj101 wrote:

redneF wrote:

I think I've discovered a real important factor that ties into religious belief.

It appears that many people have been taught very differently about history in schools.

There are major glaring contradictions in European history and American history about more recent history, at the very least...

and if the TX school board have their way this generation will be witness to it on a large scale.

The ID Creationists have been shut down. They'll never get into the science books. Ever.

Kitzmiller vs Dover was a deathblow to them.

There are too many watchdog groups that are on high alert for these con artists.

The legal precedent has been set, and there have been mulitudes of YouTube investigations and mini documentaries done on the fraudsters of ID.

This guy is one of the best.

AronRa

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa?blend=2&ob=1

 

And these guys are part of the watchdog groups, or one of the many resources that watchdog groups use for academic support.

 

Let's face it, there really aren't any super bright theists. I don't care what degrees they have. Their 'philosophical' arguments for the existence of a god, are being debunked on YouTube by kids...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

redneF wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
Luminon's beliefs can get kind of annoying, but he's a very nice guy, and he has a lot of respect for skepticism.

Ya, honestly, I think he's a hard guy to dislike. But, I can only take him in small doses when he really gets esoteric...lol

I just have a hard time believing he's totally sincere, yanno?  He seems too bright, to not be more skeptical himself. He kinda makes me wonder if I'm being 'Punk'd'.

Again, with all due respect. He really seems pretty cool.

Thank you. I don't consider myself a believer, just someone who can reach out for the esoteric stuff and it's really there.  I must reconcile that with contemporary physics. Which is not that diffcult, you just need to study both physics and esotericism. I think esotericism really helps me to understand physics, (OK... the philosophy of physics, not math) the concepts like natural forces, relativity of space, time, dark matter and higher dimensions. It helps to look at the same physics from a different angle.

Skepticism is easy, when the object of your doubt is not around. What about when it is right here, right now, visible and/or tangible? If I paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, 

"Any sufficiently convinced skeptic is indistinguishable from believer." Smiling

Of course I'm not totally sincere, there's no need to tell an internet guy everything. There's too much crazy stuff happening over the course of years and it's not just me involved in it. It's better to keep the crazy claims simplier.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@OP:  Well, there was Mak

@OP:  Well, there was Mak Thorpe, but he was a very liberal theist.  Seemed to like the idea of God and Jesus without really believing in them, although he did try to tie in a multi-verse quantum physics argument into why humans have souls.

 

I've asked the same question, and after spending more time on theistic forums, I don't think there is anything more than what you see here.  Sure, there are a couple arguments you've not seen pop up here, but you've seen the main ones.  The problem isn't the intelligence of the theists, it is the argument they have to rely on.  From what I've seen there are only a handful of arguments that an intelligent person can rely on.

1. Arguments from personal experience.  A smart person can be overwhelmed by a personal, emotional experience.  The problem is that doesn't help them convince anyone else, and if they are smart they know that.  Luminon (Funny how everyone seems to like Luminon.  Maybe that's his supernatural power).

2. Arguments from pure reason.  If you pick some axioms, you can make a logical argument that is very hard to debunk, and it can easily convince people who agree with you already.  That's the problem though, they aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already have emotional sympathy for theism.  That's the problem with arguments from pure reason.  You've seen variations of this a few times already.

3. Create a personal deity unique to them, and make it so vague that it is difficult to debate it.  You are talking to Cap right now, this is his thing.  David Henson(well, sort of) and Mak Thorpe did the same thing.  Always shifting around, never saying anything concrete that can be falsified.  These people have unique gods.  Part of the problem when trying to show them they're wrong is pinning down exactly what they do believe.

That's pretty much it.  There are tons of other arguments, you see arguments from authority a *lot*, appeals to ignorance a *lot*...those are probably the two largest, but they won't be used by the educated/intelligent theist, at least not in debate.  Well...some intelligent folks will use arguments from ignorance.

Essentially what I'm getting at, is if the Pope himself came onto this forum and started an argument, the above is all you would get.  That's it, the mine is tapped out.

 

I've never seen an argument that would convince an intelligent, objective observer.  Ever.  The only way that objective observer would become an atheist is if overcome by an emotional experience, and they latch onto a deity concept they've been culturally or socially primed to accept.

It is disappointing to me, honestly.  The debates go in the same circles, and you can always tell when the lights go off in the theist.  Push hard/long enough and it always seems to happen, they shut their brains off and start circling the intellectual wagons.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
I'm totally smart y'all.

I'm totally smart y'all.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:1. Arguments

mellestad wrote:

1. Arguments from personal experience.  A smart person can be overwhelmed by a personal, emotional experience.  The problem is that doesn't help them convince anyone else, and if they are smart they know that.  Luminon .

Well, I strongly object to the word emotional. I'm not very emotional person, I feel some emotions only ocassionally. I grew up thinking that esoteric stuff is normal, it doesn't raise my emotions. (Social justice can heat me up.) I know personal experiences don't convince other people, this is why I dig into physics and esotericism itself, to find more and more provable parallels between these two.

As for the general principle, do you mean the man who saw a beautiful but perfectly natural waterfall and it made him fell to his knees and accept Jesus to his heart?

mellestad wrote:
 (Funny how everyone seems to like Luminon.  Maybe that's his supernatural power)
I guess that's my Mercury in Aquarius in 7th house (of social relationships), well and strongly aspected. A wonderful thing to make friends among intellectuals, not so wonderful for finding a LTLP in average society.
In other words, if it wouldn't for my perception of things unseen, I'd pretty much agree with most of people here. And as I often like to think, given my observations, anyone in my place would make the same conclusions as I do.

mellestad wrote:
 2. Arguments from pure reason.  If you pick some axioms, you can make a logical argument that is very hard to debunk, and it can easily convince people who agree with you already.  That's the problem though, they aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already have emotional sympathy for theism.  That's the problem with arguments from pure reason.  You've seen variations of this a few times already.
Sure. Is this point Eloise's case? I've seen her messing around with equations. 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I'm totally

Ciarin wrote:

I'm totally smart y'all.

Not in Pineapple's thread, you aren't. Actually, I think "smart(s)" drank the koolaid in that thread.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
nah dude. I'm wicked smart.

nah dude. I'm wicked smart.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:nah dude. I'm

Ciarin wrote:

nah dude. I'm wicked smart.

 

Are you from Boston?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
I'm not from there, I just

I'm not from there, I just used to live there.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:mellestad

Luminon wrote:

mellestad wrote:

1. Arguments from personal experience.  A smart person can be overwhelmed by a personal, emotional experience.  The problem is that doesn't help them convince anyone else, and if they are smart they know that.  Luminon .

Well, I strongly object to the word emotional. I'm not very emotional person, I feel some emotions only ocassionally. I grew up thinking that esoteric stuff is normal, it doesn't raise my emotions. (Social justice can heat me up.) I know personal experiences don't convince other people, this is why I dig into physics and esotericism itself, to find more and more provable parallels between these two.

As for the general principle, do you mean the man who saw a beautiful but perfectly natural waterfall and it made him fell to his knees and accept Jesus to his heart?

mellestad wrote:
 (Funny how everyone seems to like Luminon.  Maybe that's his supernatural power)
I guess that's my Mercury in Aquarius in 7th house (of social relationships), well and strongly aspected. A wonderful thing to make friends among intellectuals, not so wonderful for finding a LTLP in average society.
In other words, if it wouldn't for my perception of things unseen, I'd pretty much agree with most of people here. And as I often like to think, given my observations, anyone in my place would make the same conclusions as I do.

mellestad wrote:
 2. Arguments from pure reason.  If you pick some axioms, you can make a logical argument that is very hard to debunk, and it can easily convince people who agree with you already.  That's the problem though, they aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already have emotional sympathy for theism.  That's the problem with arguments from pure reason.  You've seen variations of this a few times already.
Sure. Is this point Eloise's case? I've seen her messing around with equations. 

 

1.  Well, I suppose I should say personal OR emotional experience.  Although given your environment my personal opinion is you might have a hard time discerning reality.  Or who knows, you might be right.  But we've been over how you could convince me enough times there isn't any need to go into it again, haha.

Yes, the waterfall thing would be one.  Many religions, like Mormonism, define 'feeling God/the spirit' as pretty much any positive emotional reaction to prayer.  When you define the mystical to people in such broad terms they can easily find 'evidence' of such.  Never mind that a good does of something that disrupts serotonin is going to 'deny' their god the ability to interact with them.

2. Eloise....I don't know, I think Eloise' argument is based on emotion and a feeling of transcendence.  But in general yes, people that use logic equations are among that group.  The catch is I don't think anyone changes their minds based on those arguments, it is (almost)always something used to justify belief after belief already exists.  Mr. Metaphysics was this way.  He called these arguments 'proof' but he was a theist because of alleged personal experiences with his deity concept.

 

 

I'm starting to wonder if maybe your personal perception is genuine.  Stubborn conviction is a convincing argument at an emotional level.  Some people seem to be able to 'see' sound as color if their brain is wired a certain way, perhaps you've something similar, and from that combined with your esoteric upbringing you've made this conglomerate belief system.  Who knows.  Either way though I can't buy your personal claims unless they are reproducible in a controlled environment.  (I guess I did decide to go over it again, haha)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:1.  Well, I

mellestad wrote:

1.  Well, I suppose I should say personal OR emotional experience.  Although given your environment my personal opinion is you might have a hard time discerning reality.  Or who knows, you might be right.  But we've been over how you could convince me enough times there isn't any need to go into it again, haha.

Well, perceive many things, but I can usually well discern which is what. It makes me perhaps distracted, occupying a part of attention, but so far I keep my perception well sorted out. 

mellestad wrote:
 2. Eloise....I don't know, I think Eloise' argument is based on emotion and a feeling of transcendence.  But in general yes, people that use logic equations are among that group.  The catch is I don't think anyone changes their minds based on those arguments, it is (almost)always something used to justify belief after belief already exists.  Mr. Metaphysics was this way.  He called these arguments 'proof' but he was a theist because of alleged personal experiences with his deity concept.
I always wonder how people experiencing this wonderful feeling of transcendence can get to Bible and hell doctrine, which is quite opposite to that. One would think they were always subconsciously believers and needed only a sufficiently strong stimulus to go over the edge and leap into the giant assumption that Jewish god did it.

mellestad wrote:
 I'm starting to wonder if maybe your personal perception is genuine.  Stubborn conviction is a convincing argument at an emotional level.  Some people seem to be able to 'see' sound as color if their brain is wired a certain way, perhaps you've something similar, and from that combined with your esoteric upbringing you've made this conglomerate belief system.  Who knows.  Either way though I can't buy your personal claims unless they are reproducible in a controlled environment.  (I guess I did decide to go over it again, haha)

Well, I have a lot of perception of things that don't match any kind of synaesthesia, delusion or hallucination I could google up. Tactile hallucinations don't occur unless the person is seriously messed up in many other ways. So the only thing that matches the description is an element of esoteric teaching, called etheric body and etheric matter and so on. Anyone in my place would notice the similarity, I can't help it. Some scientific theories seem to support this idea, for example: http://ezinearticles.com/?Subtle-Bodies-And-Dark-Matter&id=509979 
I would like particularly to turn your attention to the supersymmetry, low density and weak interaction of the particles, passing through solid objects, and so on. That's pretty much how it behaves. I really like the article, it quotes some good sources and explains what I mean to critically thinking people in more appropriate language. What do you think, does it give any sense to you?

If complex lives like ours are primarily etheric and only secondarily dense-physical, then it is no wonder that some individuals are aware of their etheric body counterpart more than majority. Thanks to personal style of development, training and improvement in successive incarnations people like me can get their nerve system so close en rapport with etheric body, (and vice versa) that they are perfectly aware of it. In that case, the brain or even nerve system itself should receive lots of genuine touch perception-related activity even in sensory deprivation water tank.  

I want to make clear that this is a well possible idea based on correlation of personal observations, scientific facts and theories, historical sources and esoteric literature. I'm not that crazy, but I need to study more to pronounce arguments better and comprehend objections to them Smiling If I'm lucky, during the course of my life I'll get my head scanned for anomalous perception and somebody else will do the study for me. 

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I agree, modern adoption of

I agree, modern adoption of a Biblical theist concept is just cultural priming for experiences shared by most of the human race.  You can easily argue that these things fit so well because they started as explanations for our experiences.  It does seem a tremendous leap though, to a location conveniently created by local culture.

 

As to the second thing, I dunno.  This is why I value empiricism.  I doubt either one of us understands the math behind those concepts, and in any case they are speculation.  I doubt you are justified in putting them in the same category as your stuff, I think it is more like Deepak Chopra, where you take a modern cutting edge idea that most people don't understand and use it as a vessel to lend your own beliefs respectability.  *shrug*

 

I don't think you need brain scanning, I think you just need to create a falsifiable scenario for your perceptions.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 mellestad wrote:As to the

 

mellestad wrote:

As to the second thing, I dunno.  This is why I value empiricism.  I doubt either one of us understands the math behind those concepts, and in any case they are speculation.  I doubt you are justified in putting them in the same category as your stuff, I think it is more like Deepak Chopra, where you take a modern cutting edge idea that most people don't understand and use it as a vessel to lend your own beliefs respectability.  *shrug*

Deepak chopra is all about emotional feelings. He uses all these fancy words to get people relax and feel good. 

On the other side, esotericists around 1900's knew about basic forces, like that WN force is derived from SN force and that EM force is derived from WN force. They knew about the 10 dimensional space. They knew, that basic particles are made of strings. And they knew about antimatter. 

This is possible only when esoteric principles are real and can be employed to research the reality in other ways than through external technology. Math is only one approach, another is philosophy and direct observation. 

You really sound like you haven't read this article. You should also look at another article which points to some scientific themes from Leadbetter's Occult chemistry.

Suddenly it all doesn't look so simple and Chopra-like, you see? In esotericism there is a place for smart people too Smiling

mellestad wrote:
 

I don't think you need brain scanning, I think you just need to create a falsifiable scenario for your perceptions.

Well, this is the only falsifiable scenario I can think of, which will work with me alone. Other scenarios would need a similarly gifted person to provide a testable feedback. 

 

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:You really

Luminon wrote:

You really sound like you haven't read this article

I actually gave that article a shot, and I have to admit it gave me a bit of a headache.  It attempts to point to similarities between dark matter and 'subtle' matter.

I find it to be a lot of quote mining of scientific text, while forcing the mystical mambo-jumbo to sound pseudo-scientific.  Oh, and when quoting metaphysicists you're not really strengthening your point regarding empirical observations...  by definitions they should not be concerned with anything physical. 

Also the article is self contradictory at one point it claims that dark matter will form similar shapes and interact as matter (though invisibly) and further on it draws on the WIMPs theory to say that they do not interact with themselves the same way as matter.

There are more inconsistencies but I lost interest after the 6th point.  I'm rather disappointed, I expected a lot better material from Luminon.

Bottom line is 'WE DON'T KNOW'... why is that so difficult? There is a lot of scientific speculation already.  Based on solid logic and empirical data such as gravitational lensing and mass calculation, also WIMP detectors (not very efficient).  I really doubt that the dark ages mystical BS has any beneficial input.  I will continue to believe that ( and it is a view shared by the majority of skeptics ) until I will be shown peer reviewed experiments to back up those claims.

I admire what you're trying to show, but that article was very weak.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Bottom line is

Ktulu wrote:

Bottom line is 'WE DON'T KNOW'... why is that so difficult?

Because, knowledge is power.

People will always leave the dim, for the bright.

The 'dim' cannot control or rule.

 

Skeptics and disbelievers are anathema to those who claim to be in the 'Knowledge Business', or "Know the Truth".

Skeptics and disbelievers don't take adopt anything as 'true', on personal 'belief' or 'faith', which is anathema to 'believe' and 'faith'.

 

Religions are shepherds, and their flock are sheeple. The shepherds make the flock feel 'comfort', and 'security'.

'Sheeple' are afraid of 'wolves'.

The shepherds paint the skeptics and disbelievers as 'wolves', and 'presto', it's you against them.

 

Reality is, that the especially 'bright', are always enormously outnumbered, in any society.

'Might makes right' (quite often) whether or not it's actually right about anything.

Get the 'flock' to think collectively as one (herd mentality), and they will do as they are told, if they believe the "One".

 

They will drink the koolaid.

Because they will not stop believing.

It's not in their nature.

Like a moth drawn to a flame.

So, it is, so it shall be.

 

 

As far as Christians go, their problem is, they stopped eliminating 'skeptics' from the gene pool, because the 'skeptics' were the best to 'develop' the technologies to evolve weaponry and 'develop' better fortifications, to better the odds at warfare, and attacks.

Now, we're everywhere!

Skeptics did that with 'empiricism' and 'science'. The is no debate about this. They did not do it through 'incantation'. They did it by observing nature, and exploiting it's potentials.

'Beliefs' don't win wars.

Evolutional and revolutional developments do.

We 'survived', and are here in the modern world, because of 'skepticism'.

Because we 'adapted' best to the 'evolving' surroundings', and did not 'perish'.

 

Science rules, Beliefs drool.

 

Science, not only demonstrates this clearly, so does history.

Bill O'Reilly is wrong.

 

We can explain that! 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

Ktulu wrote:

Luminon wrote:

You really sound like you haven't read this article

I actually gave that article a shot, and I have to admit it gave me a bit of a headache.  It attempts to point to similarities between dark matter and 'subtle' matter.

I find it to be a lot of quote mining of scientific text, while forcing the mystical mambo-jumbo to sound pseudo-scientific.  Oh, and when quoting metaphysicists you're not really strengthening your point regarding empirical observations...  by definitions they should not be concerned with anything physical. 

Historical metaphysics makes pointless, simplistic assumptions based on dualism. IOW, that there are two kinds of stuff and nothing else, and the other stuff doesn't interact with us, so we need not to care about it anyway. That happens when you leave medieval philosophers long time without reality check.
What real esotericists observe instead is matter of lesser or greater degrees of the ability to interact with us, due to its less or more different sub-atomic arrangement. 

Anyway, you give me little choice. Small articles are not good enough and I can't occupy your time with large books. That means, I've got to become expert both in the fat tomes of esotericism and princess of sciences, the physics. (math is the queen) The last one who could keep up with the progress of both fields was the great initiate H. P. Blavatsky herself.  Her curicullum says she really gave skeptics hell, but in her times physics was simplier.

Ktulu wrote:
 Also the article is self contradictory at one point it claims that dark matter will form similar shapes and interact as matter (though invisibly) and further on it draws on the WIMPs theory to say that they do not interact with themselves the same way as matter.
Well, that's exactly what it does, I can observe it. It may seem contradictory, but according to my observation, the etheric (dark) matter can quickly change its structure, density, and so on, like a big liquid crystal, depending if it's influenced and utilized by a living organism or not. Inside and around living organisms it's most organized, most structured and therefore most able to ineract with them. This is a big part of what vitality is.

Ktulu wrote:
 There are more inconsistencies but I lost interest after the 6th point.  I'm rather disappointed, I expected a lot better material from Luminon.
Well, the good material gets gathered slowly. 

Ktulu wrote:
 Bottom line is 'WE DON'T KNOW'... why is that so difficult? There is a lot of scientific speculation already.  Based on solid logic and empirical data such as gravitational lensing and mass calculation, also WIMP detectors (not very efficient).  I really doubt that the dark ages mystical BS has any beneficial input.  I will continue to believe that ( and it is a view shared by the majority of skeptics ) until I will be shown peer reviewed experiments to back up those claims.

In return, I think "we don't know" is a dualistic idea. We either know or don't know. Knowing is having several positive, independent peer-reviewed studies. Not knowing is everything else. If there are no such studies, there are many degrees of positive certainity, then neutrality and then many degrees of negative certainity, individually for every person. 

We don't realize how little work was here ever done. We don't ask the very fundamental questions. One such question is, what do you expect from an answer, how do you imagine it? I know you'd want a couple of double-blind peer-reviewed studies from reputable scientists. But be realistic, please. There is so little work done, that such studies do not yet exist. They will exist when we will work towards them gradually. Now tell me, what would be an initial step towards such studies, acceptable for you? In what form you want your reply?

I can point at an article on the Internet, which is not good enough for you. I can point towards a whole book, preferably online. I can take excerpts from such a book, if I have read it, which takes lots of time. I could perhaps make a summary of some original, historical esoteric claims, that were later confirmed as scientifically valid. That involves a lot of work on my part. Or you can read the book and see for yourself, that includes a lot of work on your part. Or you can say that you're so little interested in the subject, that you're not willing to spend your attention on anything less than peer-reviewed scientific studies, which is of course your right, but it won't help anything. 

I just say, there must be some rules of official communication, otherwise we'll fail on mutual misunderstanding. Both sides need to learn something from each other's paradigms, language, methods, available tools and techniques, before we can even think of finding out if there is anything true about the woo claims. Maybe we must before that even acknowledge, that the other side of argument really exists and is meaningful and capable of reply, given understanding of our langugage. 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I can point at

Luminon wrote:

I can point at an article on the Internet, which is not good enough for you. I can point towards a whole book, preferably online. I can take excerpts from such a book, if I have read it, which takes lots of time. I could perhaps make a summary of some original, historical esoteric claims, that were later confirmed as scientifically valid. That involves a lot of work on my part. Or you can read the book and see for yourself, that includes a lot of work on your part. Or you can say that you're so little interested in the subject, that you're not willing to spend your attention on anything less than peer-reviewed scientific studies, which is of course your right, but it won't help anything. 

In all honesty, you are correct than many people simply are indifferent to esoteric claims, for the reason that it doesn't mesh with their perception of reality.

 

Luminon wrote:
I just say, there must be some rules of official communication, otherwise we'll fail on mutual misunderstanding. Both sides need to learn something from each other's paradigms, language, methods, available tools and techniques, before we can even think of finding out if there is anything true about the woo claims. Maybe we must before that even acknowledge, that the other side of argument really exists and is meaningful and capable of reply, given understanding of our langugage. 

I understand what you are saying, however, my previous point still applies. Astrologers face the same obstacle. They claim all sorts of things, and have a very lengthy history of investigation, and geometry and so forth, that aren't very compelling, or interesting to people like me, anymore.

As a teen, I studied Chinese Astrology to a pretty high level, out of curiousity, with adults who were very knowledgable about it, and concluded it to be nonsensical, and not viable.

I didn't fail Astrology. It failed to be compelling, as a preoccupation, and not viable at all, as a science, or technology.

I respect that you conduct yourself in a diplomatic way, instead of the unilateral approach that's typical of theists and other spiritual groups.

And I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually sincere and objective, about your experience(s).

I have yet to see you try and extend your 'beliefs' and 'experiences', and 'knowledge' to tell anyone, or persecute them for how 'right' or 'wrong' their personal choices and conducts are. So, you're OK, in my book.

And who knows? Maybe there are some things that are viable in what you model in your thoughts.

I don't find a number of your models practical, or useful, but, I could say the same for some of the quantum theory and string theory models I've heard.

None of them, do I find any kind of threat to my reality, or life, in any way, shape, or form. They're benign, in that context.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

nah dude. I'm wicked smart.

 

Are you from Boston?

Is someone looking for a date?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I can point at

Luminon wrote:

I can point at an article on the Internet, which is not good enough for you. I can point towards a whole book, preferably online. I can take excerpts from such a book, if I have read it, which takes lots of time. I could perhaps make a summary of some original, historical esoteric claims, that were later confirmed as scientifically valid. That involves a lot of work on my part. Or you can read the book and see for yourself, that includes a lot of work on your part. Or you can say that you're so little interested in the subject, that you're not willing to spend your attention on anything less than peer-reviewed scientific studies, which is of course your right, but it won't help anything. 

Ok, this may be the wine talking, but I think you're making a valid point.  I will keep an open mind.  Where do I begin to give this an actual shot?  Give me a book title, preferably over the internet, and I promise I will attempt it.  Also you may be able to guide me in my attempt to understand where you are coming from.

You seem utterly convinced, and you seem like an intelligent person, there has to be something there.  Maybe I can understand it, or understand where you have gone wrong.

So, assume I'm completely ignorant of your position, what's the first thing I should read?

Edit: drunk mistype/spell

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: mellestad

Luminon wrote:

 

mellestad wrote:

As to the second thing, I dunno.  This is why I value empiricism.  I doubt either one of us understands the math behind those concepts, and in any case they are speculation.  I doubt you are justified in putting them in the same category as your stuff, I think it is more like Deepak Chopra, where you take a modern cutting edge idea that most people don't understand and use it as a vessel to lend your own beliefs respectability.  *shrug*

Deepak chopra is all about emotional feelings. He uses all these fancy words to get people relax and feel good. 

On the other side, esotericists around 1900's knew about basic forces, like that WN force is derived from SN force and that EM force is derived from WN force. They knew about the 10 dimensional space. They knew, that basic particles are made of strings. And they knew about antimatter. 

This is possible only when esoteric principles are real and can be employed to research the reality in other ways than through external technology. Math is only one approach, another is philosophy and direct observation. 

You really sound like you haven't read this article. You should also look at another article which points to some scientific themes from Leadbetter's Occult chemistry.

Suddenly it all doesn't look so simple and Chopra-like, you see? In esotericism there is a place for smart people too Smiling

mellestad wrote:
 

I don't think you need brain scanning, I think you just need to create a falsifiable scenario for your perceptions.

Well, this is the only falsifiable scenario I can think of, which will work with me alone. Other scenarios would need a similarly gifted person to provide a testable feedback. 

 

 

I'll check some of the links when I have time, perhaps this evening.  I'm out of town right now, so I don't have much to do in my hotel room.

 

As for the second, I don't think a brain scan would help either way.  I guess it *could* help, if you were able to reproduce a scenario consistently while under a brain scan, but you have not been able to demonstrate that you can do that *without* the brain scan, so I think that is leaping ahead a bit, do you know what I mean?

 

First you need to show that you can reliably (or anything better than chance) reproduce whatever it is you are claiming to do, *then* you can start talking about brain scanning to figure out *how* such a thing might be occuring.  

 

No-one is likely to spend the resources testing your claims when your claims are not reproducible in the first place.  Fancy equipment isn't going to solve that problem.

 

I'm rooting for you on this, I really am, I think it would be cool and by showing reproducible evidence for your claims you'd be changing science forever.  I'm all for that.  I still think step one is simple, cheap, controlled scenarios.  Then fancy equipment.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: mellestad

Luminon wrote:

 

mellestad wrote:
 

I don't think you need brain scanning, I think you just need to create a falsifiable scenario for your perceptions.

Well, this is the only falsifiable scenario I can think of, which will work with me alone. Other scenarios would need a similarly gifted person to provide a testable feedback. 

This has been discussed.

If that's the only method you can devise as a method of distinction between reality/not reality, then you have the most unreliable method to try and quantify and qualify anything.

It's just that simple.

An individual's personal 'perception' is wholly inadequate to quantify and 'scale' stimuli, or distinguish between there/not there dichotomies.

This is well known, and understood, scientifically.

If you'd like to debate about it, we can do that 1 on 1, and I will demonstrate how this is a completely, and absolutely accurate model of human inadequacy.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Hi,

If I had to choose the most intelligent, funniest, most logical good looking theist in the world and on this board, it would have to be Jean Chauvin.

He's very charming. As I listen to him, i desire to be God's child and worship Him.

Thanks Jean Chauvin for inspiring me to be a better person.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).