|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 372 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 175 of 372:
| 
Jun 10 21:24 UTC 2002 |
(I thought it was "cogito," but I could be wrong.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 176 of 372:
|
Jun 10 21:53 UTC 2002 |
#173> "Cogito ergo sum" is precisely what I said, so how is it evidence
against my theory? (There is, in fact, absolutely no evidence against my
theory. Cogito ergo sum is the only truth. Beyond that, everything's based
on presumption.)
(And you did say it out loud, and you didn't hurt my feelings.)
#174> Now you've got it! If it's not reproducible by the means of science,
then it's superstition, religion, or mysticism. If it *is* reproducible by
the means of science, then it ceases to be superstition, and becomes science.
If people start catching on, Rane, you're going to have to change the shape
of the shells.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 177 of 372:
|
Jun 11 02:37 UTC 2002 |
After a little more thought, and expanding on my #173, the real argument
against #172, is SO WHAT? if it is identical, it is the same, and therefore
the question is irrelevant, as one would behave exactly the same way.
But you don't seem to get it, as if your alternative (identical) hypothesis
were the case, you would not exist and could not be consciously asking
questions and arguing.
|
brighn
|
|
response 178 of 372:
|
Jun 11 03:21 UTC 2002 |
"So what" indeed. Is "if it is identical, it is the same" really the best you
can come up, after "a little more thought, and expanding"? That's the depth
you can reach on the subject of objective vs. subjective reality?
Rane, you're being as disappointing as twinkie. Am I going to have to start
a debate with Michael, just so I can get some depth?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 179 of 372:
|
Jun 11 04:45 UTC 2002 |
It isn't an issue of subjective vs objective reality, but simplicity vs
complexity. These unique, one of a kind, special events, such as
postulated for (what was it?) 4004 years ago, that the universe was
set in motion exactly as it needed to be for it to be as it is today,
is another of those laughable hypotheses, like your proposal that
all of reality is in the imagnination of....what? It is similar
to the less mystical idea behind the Matrix. The first two are founded
in the premise that a very unusual event occurs that is undetectable.
But this is such a special hypothesis, that it is your burden to
provide evidence that it is the case. This you cannot do, as you have
made that a part of the hypothesis. Hence, the hypotheses are vacuous.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 180 of 372:
|
Jun 11 10:21 UTC 2002 |
Rane, you cannot climb inside my head, so you do *NOT* know the
reality there. You may conjecture it as fantasy or vain imaginations,
but you cannot tell me it is not real without somehow reading my mind
and then vicariously living those experiences.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 181 of 372:
|
Jun 11 10:24 UTC 2002 |
you might as well try to explain to me what salt tastes like. If I've
never tasted salt, how can I know what it tastes like unless I do
taste it? Therefore, it is quite obvious that your experience is not
mine, and vice versa, and that is it.
To use some scientific terminology, your observations are your own.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 182 of 372:
|
Jun 11 12:34 UTC 2002 |
You just don't get it, do you? What is there in "Demian" or "Animal Farm" or
anything else that is "realistic"? It's made up stuff about things that can't
happen. If it helps you to understand your world, or understand yourself, it
is NOT valueless and not imaginary any more than love or thought is imaginary.
If you want to be a bigot Rane, that is fine with me, but at least ADMIT that
you're being a bigot and quite trying to pretend that your own prejudices are
superior to those of everyone else.
|
brighn
|
|
response 183 of 372:
|
Jun 11 13:39 UTC 2002 |
#179> Now it's gotten to overt flames. Rane, you really ARE being
disappointing. You're illustrating that you haven't really seriously read any
of my previous posts on the subject, because if you had, you're realize that
"cogito ergo sum" (my version) is not being put forward as a plausible
hypothesis, but rather as a possible one. That's been my distinction all
along, one that you seem to not wish to see: You want to live in the realm
of the plausible, which is fine, but then reject as "dumb," "ridiculous," and
"laughable" anything that's possible but implausible, which is not (in my
view) "fine."
By the way, I'd like to see you squirm out of an accusation that you did just
call the God hypothesis "laughable." "Laughable" (capable of being laughed
at) and "ridiculous" (capable of being ridiculed, i.e., laughed at) are close
enough to being synonyms that you've just revealed that you do, indeed, find
the God hypothesis ridiculous, and hence your earlier "where am I being
dishonest" comment was, as I said, dishonest.
You have lost whatever credibility you had in this thread, in my mind, by
letting your lie slip.
Kudos.
|
flem
|
|
response 184 of 372:
|
Jun 11 14:08 UTC 2002 |
re #176 re #174: No no, you've missed the really amazing part. He didn't
claim that something was mysticism if it was irreproducible by science, he
claimed that mysticism consisted exactly of that which was *contradicted* by
science. In other words, belief in god is not mysticism.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 185 of 372:
|
Jun 11 14:11 UTC 2002 |
I thought he was claiming that everything he didn't believe in was mysticism.
At any rate, if it disagrees with science it must be mysticism? I repeat, does
that mean literature isn't valid because it might include talking animals or
people riding along on the tops of electons? Lots of things disagree with
science, but it doesn't mean it is totally illusory or not worth
contemplating.
|
brighn
|
|
response 186 of 372:
|
Jun 11 16:29 UTC 2002 |
Actually, everything Rane doesn't believe in is laughable, ridiculous, and
dumb. ;}
|
vmskid
|
|
response 187 of 372:
|
Jun 11 17:16 UTC 2002 |
That's kind of what I thought.
|
eskarina
|
|
response 188 of 372:
|
Jun 11 17:58 UTC 2002 |
re jep's post awhile back: I'm not a pagan, perhaps that's why you didn't
think I was a pagan.
Rane said that he prefers to find joy in "reality", not "mysticism", not
seeming to realize that so someone who actually believes in and perhaps
practices things involved in a form of mysticism thinks of it very much as
reality.
In my not so humble opinion, Rane needs to contemplate for a moment that some
people do actually believe this stuff and phrase his responses in a respectful
way towards those people. For instance:
"I don't have the capacity to believe in any sort of mysticism, therefore
contemplating it gives me no comfort." Rather than dismissing it as something
that cannot give comfort period.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 189 of 372:
|
Jun 11 18:03 UTC 2002 |
I agree. But then again, respecting others isn't rational. It's a kind of
mysticims, you see.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 190 of 372:
|
Jun 11 18:25 UTC 2002 |
He's no worse than most religious people when talking to the non-religious,
and he's a hell of a lot politer and more respectful than some. I'd say he's
being less respectful of alternate views than more of the religious people
in this item, but that's not the general rule based on my experience as a non-
religious person in the US.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 191 of 372:
|
Jun 11 19:04 UTC 2002 |
I disagree. Anyone who disagrees with him is a moron who beleives in
all sorts of imaginary things. All I ever said was that not all aspects
of all religious belief deserve to be cast aside as illusory. While
most religious people can be quite intolerant and disresepctful to the
views of others, in my experience, the "non-religious" are not much
better.
|
brighn
|
|
response 192 of 372:
|
Jun 11 21:01 UTC 2002 |
To be fair to Rane, I don't think he's ever used -- or would use -- "moron"
to refer to a generic theist. He appears to find religion and mysticism the
outlet for the deluded (at worst) and fanciful (at best), and finds comparing
mystical theories to scientific ones "laughable," but I do think the harshest
word I've seen him use on this topic was "dumb," and that was something of
a surprise.
He thinks theists are self-deluded, but not moronic, as far as I can tell.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 193 of 372:
|
Jun 11 21:47 UTC 2002 |
But I'm tolerant, even accepting.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 194 of 372:
|
Jun 12 00:39 UTC 2002 |
Re #191: Depends. A lot of non-religious people just don't say anything
about it to people they don't know because they're sick of being
treated like scum, or misguided children. I've gotten a hell of
a lot of abuse for it.
|
mary
|
|
response 195 of 372:
|
Jun 12 01:59 UTC 2002 |
From Christians? Nooooo. ;-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 196 of 372:
|
Jun 12 02:56 UTC 2002 |
(I wouldn't say that treating adults like self-deluded palliated children is
"accepting," but that's just me.)
|
bru
|
|
response 197 of 372:
|
Jun 12 02:59 UTC 2002 |
I personally have hever treated the non-religious as scum.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 198 of 372:
|
Jun 12 03:07 UTC 2002 |
You wouldn't want me to be dishonest, would you?
|
brighn
|
|
response 199 of 372:
|
Jun 12 03:10 UTC 2002 |
Heh.
Rane actually made me laugh at loud. Deliberately, too.
|