×

Quote from: underclass
see you tomorrow
Quote from: Emperor Reagan
Huh?
Quote from: Drugmoth
Totally!
Quote from: communist twat
peace out bro!
Quote from: Thrash
WTF just happened?


Religulous(Read 5179 times)
Re: Religulous Reply #30 on: March 23, 2009, 07:47:39 PM
That was all joke, of course, but as profound as it is I'm not really sure that the double slit experiment proves anything about the existence of a supernatural deity. Certainly it's strange science but (unlike supernatural phenomena) its foundations lie in the natural realm, the experiment is eminently repeatable, and far from requiring blind faith - the scientists who performed it invited required scrutiny...

Let's go back and expand in microprint on the suggestion that was made earlier that when speaking of understanding, the scientific concept of belief is of equivalent validity to that of the religious concept of belief. I don't think I explained myself very well regarding this particular notion and it relates in a way to the implied next step you're making when you speak of the double slit experiment. Hopefully this will be clearer than it was.

I think it's pretty clear that the only way the two "beliefs" can be considered equivalently valid is if one is to disregard an objective reality. Reality is the ultimate test of a theory and if you have no way to test your theory via reality then you are trivializing the single nexus between the two lines of argument. Granted if a religious person consciously dodges reality then he can speak of whatever he wishes, but most religious people I have encountered seem to strongly support the idea that objective reality is in alignment with their theories although they equally strongly discourage means to test it. Is the idea that scrutiny can mar objective reality? Is there a shred of evidence supporting this? I know the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has become the darling of the pseudoscience crowd, but what does it really bring us to? Like the Double Slit experiment it brings us to the edge of what we as humans can understand through our limited experience of nature. To at this point make an about face and decide based on no evidence that the only natural events possible are those which we have personally experienced and that this must ipso facto be proof of supernature is singularly absurd. Maybe I'm making an argument that would lead to the natural classification of what we call supernatural. So be it. In that case, there is no way to have any degree of certainty in these non-experiential realities since we cannot perform tests. So what does it boil down to? The scientist will ask that you accept all facts supported by repeatable experience and to reject or hold in question those that are unsupported. The pious will ask you to accept the words of another human with no greater insight than you and to accept that his untestable theories are correct even when they conflict with your testable/tested ones. Even if the suggestion is made that the original source of the untestable theories is some divinity, the problem boils down to the reliability of the first human claiming to have been originally contacted. Given what we know about human nature, what we know about aboriginal drug-induced religions, what we know about the nature of oral tradition, what we know about the historical changes to the canons central to each religion and the fact that no two independently arising religions agree on all points, doesn't it feel a bit naive to rest our belief on this first prophet? Doesn't it feel as though it multiplies matters a bit beyond necessity?

EDIT: microing for the TLDR crowd.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 08:18:06 PM by Doormouse »



Re: Religulous Reply #31 on: March 23, 2009, 08:38:06 PM
When writing things on the internet (or in email), break paragraphs down into three sentences maximum, two sentences on average.  It will increase the percentage of people that read everything that you have to say.
Like yours.  Only different.



Re: Religulous Reply #32 on: March 23, 2009, 09:16:43 PM
It will increase the percentage of people that read everything anything that you have to say.
Loaded-Gun.com - I don't know what the hell they are talking about or why they are even there. They don't make serious points and they don't joke, but they still manage to make a lot of posts somehow.



Re: Religulous Reply #33 on: March 23, 2009, 09:24:35 PM
Haven't you people ever been through anything like this before? Like all good science versus religion arguments nobody is seriously expected to read any of it.

Typical format: two people rant up and down by carefully cherry picking individual poorly-constructed sentences from the other's rant from which to launch the next pointless wave of text. After a while one side gives up and says "Fuck it! I don't even care that you're still wrong." and the other one smirkingly concludes he's won. Internet arguments of this brand are all verbal wars of attrition. If there were an answer that would satisfy all sides, would we be the ones to finally solve it after so many centuries of philosophers have failed?



Re: Religulous Reply #34 on: March 23, 2009, 09:35:33 PM
how many monkeys on typewriters does it take?  :)
Like yours.  Only different.



Re: Religulous Reply #35 on: March 23, 2009, 09:38:18 PM
The monkeys would have to go at it differently. I think they would have to approach the problem by reworking our lexicon. Phrases used to describe religious thought and scientific thought shouldn't overlap hardly at all. It leads to utter confusion. As it stands the two areas of discussion overlap on all the important phrases.

EDIT: Just noticed this part:
(or in email)
My emails haven't been that bad have they? I try to keep most of my board-posts to just the usual dick and fart jokes, but I do sometimes ramble in emails. I tend to think of them as letters. Be thankful I've not sent you one of those.  :P  ...Yet...
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 09:45:27 PM by Doormouse »



Re: Religulous Reply #36 on: March 23, 2009, 09:55:16 PM
Oh, oh, really?  So, now we're back to arguing about lexicon?
Like yours.  Only different.



Re: Religulous Reply #37 on: March 23, 2009, 09:57:21 PM
EDIT: Just noticed this part:
(or in email)
My emails haven't been that bad have they? I try to keep most of my board-posts to just the usual dick and fart jokes, but I do sometimes ramble in emails. I tend to think of them as letters. Be thankful I've not sent you one of those.  :P  ...Yet...
It's just a trick I stumbled upon, several years ago.

In corporate America, your best chance to catch someone's attention is to write a short sentence at the beginning of an electronic communication framing your topic.  Then, you follow up with several short paragraphs (no more than 3 sentences each, preferably two) to elaborate your point.

Finally, you close with another short sentence that finalizes your point.
Like yours.  Only different.



Re: Religulous Reply #38 on: March 23, 2009, 10:00:08 PM
I think it's pretty clear that the only way the two "beliefs" can be considered equivalently valid is if one is to disregard an objective reality.

Reality is the ultimate test of a theory and if you have no way to test your theory via reality then you are trivializing the single nexus between the two lines of argument. Granted if a religious person consciously dodges reality then he can speak of whatever he wishes, but most religious people I have encountered seem to strongly support the idea that objective reality is in alignment with their theories although they equally strongly discourage means to test it.

Is the idea that scrutiny can mar objective reality? Is there a shred of evidence supporting this?

I know the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has become the darling of the pseudoscience crowd, but what does it really bring us to? Like the Double Slit experiment it brings us to the edge of what we as humans can understand through our limited experience of nature. To at this point make an about face and decide based on no evidence that the only natural events possible are those which we have personally experienced and that this must ipso facto be proof of supernature is singularly absurd.

Maybe I'm making an argument that would lead to the natural classification of what we call supernatural. So be it. In that case, there is no way to have any degree of certainty in these non-experiential realities since we cannot perform tests.

So what does it boil down to?

The scientist will ask that you accept all facts supported by repeatable experience and to reject or hold in question those that are unsupported. The pious will ask you to accept the words of another human with no greater insight than you and to accept that his untestable theories are correct even when they conflict with your testable/tested ones.

Even if the suggestion is made that the original source of the untestable theories is some divinity, the problem boils down to the reliability of the first human claiming to have been originally contacted.

Given what we know about human nature, what we know about aboriginal drug-induced religions, what we know about the nature of oral tradition, what we know about the historical changes to the canons central to each religion and the fact that no two independently arising religions agree on all points, doesn't it feel a bit naive to rest our belief on this first prophet?  Doesn't it feel as though it multiplies matters a bit beyond necessity?
Like yours.  Only different.



Re: Religulous Reply #39 on: March 23, 2009, 10:06:13 PM
Thanks for the writing tips.

PS - Lexicon also appears earlier in this thread if you ramble-wade. I'll put a clamp on my opinions in this field though. I can tell when it's time.



Re: Religulous Reply #40 on: March 24, 2009, 12:51:21 AM
I'm not convinced of the validity of the Heisenberg principal as it relates to the observational relationship between observed and ignored results.
Nor am I convinced that particles must pass through both slits concurrently to produce such an interference pattern. But I'm a hands on person and If I haven't tried it myself then I remain skeptical.

But, adding it to the discussion was a stroke of genius even if it was meant to be a joke.  There are very complex correlations to be considered.

However, I'm not yet sold on the current explanations for this effect. Currently the test equipment has too much undesired determination on the results, ... in my opinion.
And where were you while the cat was away, making like a mouse?



Re: Religulous Reply #41 on: March 24, 2009, 01:00:44 AM
>>When writing things on the internet (or in ....<<

I write whatever I'm thinking even if it results in a three paragraph run on sentence with a half dozen commas.
Who cares, ideas are all that matters.
And where were you while the cat was away, making like a mouse?



Re: Religulous Reply #42 on: March 24, 2009, 01:03:51 AM
I guess we'll never make it in corporate America, Tru.



Re: Religulous Reply #43 on: March 24, 2009, 01:04:28 AM
Who cares, ideas are all that matters.

disagree.

communication of your ideas is all that matters.

a genius locked in a cell does the world no good.

an idiot can turn a crowd to savage things.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 01:11:49 AM by eitje »
Like yours.  Only different.



Re: Religulous Reply #44 on: March 24, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
disagree with what?



Re: Religulous Reply #45 on: March 24, 2009, 01:19:30 AM
He disagrees with the idea that external entities should be tasked with interpreting the ideas of those who are incapable of articulating their concepts.
A point which must be taken to extreme to be relevant yet valid nonetheless.
And where were you while the cat was away, making like a mouse?



Re: Religulous Reply #46 on: March 24, 2009, 07:08:07 AM
Yeah, same reason that after watching Lady in the Water I decided that if I ever met M Night Shyamalan in person I'd just spout random words and guttural noises at him until he complained, then say, "Oh, so Cohesion IS more important than originality, huh?"
No one mourns the wicked.



Re: Religulous Reply #47 on: March 24, 2009, 10:43:04 AM
That still jives with "We'll never make it in corporate America."
I read it wrong. There was no quoted material so I thought he was responding to my post.



Re: Religulous Reply #48 on: March 24, 2009, 07:15:36 PM
I listened to an interesting podcast on the nature of reality while I was at work today.  If anyone's interested in beating the dead horse, it was Episode 25 @ http://sittingnow.co.uk/




Re: Religulous Reply #49 on: March 25, 2009, 07:09:02 AM
this thread needs more boobs.



Re: Religulous Reply #50 on: March 25, 2009, 07:17:31 AM
(.)(.)
Loaded-Gun.com - I don't know what the hell they are talking about or why they are even there. They don't make serious points and they don't joke, but they still manage to make a lot of posts somehow.



Re: Religulous Reply #51 on: March 25, 2009, 09:44:14 AM
Does your God allow this?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 09:44:29 AM by Mosh »