|
sunset_mission
Entheonaut



Registered: 01/22/11
Posts: 5,767
Loc: NYC (Intra Deitate...)
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
#15415036 - 11/23/11 09:11 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said:
Quote:
sunset_mission said: When this statement is said, that "God" is everywhere, this, while meant to be taken both literally and metaphorically, is also implying that everything you see around you (the Creation) contains in itself the Creator from which it stems from. It denotes more a paradigm shift in a person's perspective than anything, for the individual to attempt to consciously see all things about it as containing in itself some inherent divinity, from the elements (wind, water, etc.), trees, animals, and ultimately 'other selves'.
I love this. I bolded the part that I find most resonant. IMO the denial of God is a form of solipsism.
In a sense, you are correct. The solipsist knows and wholeheartedly believes only his own mind to exist, and that all things around him are constructs of his own mind. To a degree, he is correct, in that reality is a construct of the mind. Each individual creates the reality he/she is living in through the attitudes, thoughts, emotions, perspectives, and deeds it has chosen for itself. The solipsist, however, denies that people around him (other selves) are capable of such self-awareness or sentience because in the end, for the solipsist, they are only figments of his construction.
The solipsistic view chooses to blot out certain aspects about reality, namely that the individual is a co-Creator of reality rather than the sole Creator. To deny that others exist would be to deprive the lives of others of value in your own mind, at least. Still going on the assumption that all things which exist in the Creation are an avatar of the Creator, by denying that others exist you are denying the Creation exists; by extension, to then deny the Creator exists would be denying that other selves exist.
Hm, I hadn't thought of correlating solipsism and atheism before. Interesting notion, Tchan.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: sunset_mission]
#15415065 - 11/23/11 09:16 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have your analysis to thank for being able to make that correlation.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
propensity
۞̷ ̶۞̷ ̶



Registered: 01/06/10
Posts: 11,056
Loc: Bedrock America
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
#15415102 - 11/23/11 09:25 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sunset mission!
The chilluminated brethren request your presence!
--------------------
۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟͢ www.cactophage.com ۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟͢ ̸ۨ͜۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟Dolphins of Dank۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Poid]
#15415163 - 11/23/11 09:41 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Poid said: Theories aren't called facts because they aren't facts. 
just as the ted hagards of this world may make a fortune bilking the believers while pushing the word of god, the believers of science are gobbling up the words of the scientist as though it were the gospel
Even if this is true, so what, what does this say about science itself? Nothing.
right and the fact that modern science is money driven and rife with fraud
I'm sure that says nothing either
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Prisoner#1]
#15415188 - 11/23/11 09:46 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with you about atheism, Pris, but anybody with a thorough education in science and an ability to think critically should be able to see through the money and fraud.
On the other hand, if you're a gullible sheep feeding from the trough of mass media and popular opinion, then I do agree that science can be disastrously misleading.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Subconscious]
#15415199 - 11/23/11 09:48 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Subconscious said:
Quote:
Herbologist said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: why all the hate for people that believe in the christian god, I keep hearing people on this site talking about respect, unity, tolerance, open mindedness and enlightenment yet every time the subject of christianity comes up the intolerant haters calling themselves atheists come out of the woodwork like cockroaches. I astounds me that alternate religions like Jainism, Buddhism are so accepted here but to believe in the mainstream religions a person must be a delusional twat
yeah... we see how enlightening psychedelics and education are
i couldnt of said it better myself
I don't care what a person believes, but when some stranger is aggressively telling me what I should believe and proclaiming their beliefs as fact or superior to mine... it really grinds my gears.
I simply shake their hand, thank them for their concern and walk away
why would the enlightened people of this place allow someone to get them so worked up over nothing... it just seems so silly to concern yourself with some guy out there preaching damnation. there is no rule saying you have to stop and hear it, nothing but your own drive compels you to respond
|
realfuzzhead



Registered: 03/03/10
Posts: 10,783
Loc: above the smog layer
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: propensity]
#15415206 - 11/23/11 09:49 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
propensity said: You require faith in science because all science relies on human perception, which science has proven isn't really 100% accurate.
You have to put faith in the idea that what you're seeing is real or none of it works, because you really have no way of actually knowing.
yes i understand, science is by no means perfect.
but as far as tangible results go, (you know, tangible? like the stuff we actually can feel/touch/see/observe/measure in the universe?), nothing comes close to science. Religion gave us stories, things to fight about, "the divine chain of being", boring art for thousands of years, laws that don't apply any where else but our small pinhead of a corner of the universe, and it gave us tangible results in that people acted differently but that doesn't even compare to science.
science gave us the computer.. going to mars.. fuckin engines, real medicine (although there is a ton of scam med's out there too, and religions do have their own healing techniques,but you never see a religious person save a thousand people from malaria) all the things religion could not do. Science is by no means perfect but it starts with interrogation of our surroundings using objective measurement (objective by some means, I mean if i measure something... and you measure something, and our instrument is the same we get the same result. You just don't have that with religion), there is no 'authority' in science, and once again, as far as tangible, every day, easily recognizable results, science is above all.
I really don't like having to say stuff about religion because I come from a very religious family and I respect everyone's right to believe whatever the fuck they want to believe during this short glimpse of wonder we have at this universe, but I feel obligated to point out some obvious differences between the two and the way's that try to complete the same task

|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
#15415228 - 11/23/11 09:55 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said: I agree with you about atheism, Pris, but anybody with a thorough education in science and an ability to think critically should be able to see through the money and fraud.
do you honestly believe that? some of the most brilliant minds are taken in by it, money drives the research for desired results, the press reports those desired results, how many years were we tole that marijuana causes all kinds of health issues and now scientific research says smoking marijuana cures cancer and a host of other ailments... except that's also falsely or misleadingly reported as well because money is hanging out with science
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-8/iss-6/p12.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994041/ http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v9/n2/full/nn0206-149.html
|
abltsandwich
JFK = Jelly Donut




Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 11,537
Loc: Dildoville
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: wildchild68] 1
#15415247 - 11/23/11 09:59 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Everyone loves just to give their opinion on religion. If everyone just kept to themselves about this shit there wouldn't be any problems. No jackoffs on college campus yelling about god, no atheist jackoffs yelling about christians yelling, none of it.
But we just can't help but say something. It's all so fucking absurd.
|
propensity
۞̷ ̶۞̷ ̶



Registered: 01/06/10
Posts: 11,056
Loc: Bedrock America
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: realfuzzhead]
#15415248 - 11/23/11 09:59 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I never said anything about the validity of either science or religion.
I didn't even say they were trying to complete the same task.
Simply that science requires faith in your perception.
--------------------
۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟͢ www.cactophage.com ۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟͢ ̸ۨ͜۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟Dolphins of Dank۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: sunset_mission]
#15415257 - 11/23/11 10:02 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sunset_mission said: Except that oftentimes the faith in theories postulated by the scientist can be proven or disproven through trials enacted to reach such ends, at which point the faith either becomes a truth/fact or, if proven to be wrong, simply fades.
The faith which the religious devotee places in certain things cannot be proven or disproven, thus it remains as merely faith.
so prove or disprove the singularity/big bang theory to me even though it violates the laws of energy conservation prove or disprove abiogenesis by one of the several models that are popular
you cannot so we need to take it on faith just as with any other religion
|
sunset_mission
Entheonaut



Registered: 01/22/11
Posts: 5,767
Loc: NYC (Intra Deitate...)
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Prisoner#1]
#15415269 - 11/23/11 10:07 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
sunset_mission said: Except that oftentimes the faith in theories postulated by the scientist can be proven or disproven through trials enacted to reach such ends, at which point the faith either becomes a truth/fact or, if proven to be wrong, simply fades.
The faith which the religious devotee places in certain things cannot be proven or disproven, thus it remains as merely faith.
so prove or disprove the singularity/big bang theory to me even though it violates the laws of energy conservation prove or disprove abiogenesis by one of the several models that are popular
you cannot so we need to take it on faith just as with any other religion
So what you're trying to imply is, that faith is as central a component to science as it is to religion then? Is that correct?
|
realfuzzhead



Registered: 03/03/10
Posts: 10,783
Loc: above the smog layer
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: propensity]
#15415279 - 11/23/11 10:10 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
propensity said: I never said anything about the validity of either science or religion.
I didn't even say they were trying to complete the same task.
Simply that science requires faith in your perception.
ok well you replied to my reply on both validity and the fact that they are trying to accomplish the same thing, that they are trying to understand the universe better, so i assumed your reply had to do with the context of my post
and it requires faith in your perception to a point but, i mean, a computer fucking work while it works while others built just like it work for a billion other people in this world. You don't have to go deep into a mind trance or have a vision, science just works. That's because science is just the direct observation of our universe, so while it may require some faith that "reality is real" it also works for billions of different people simultaniously and seperately from one another. It's just a description of how stuff works, to the best of our knowledge, and these things can't just work for one person subjectively to be adopted into the body of science, they must be confirmed by anyone , regardless of authority..
it only takes a quick glance to spot the subjectivity and faith in religion, you must look much deeper into science
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: sunset_mission]
#15415283 - 11/23/11 10:12 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I said this a while ago in PS&P and it went underappreciated, so I'll reiterate.
In my biology class, the theory that DNA is transcribed to RNA before being replicated as DNA is referred to as "central dogma." This is because it's the only theory that reliably explains DNA replication, and also because it's widely known that this theory is false.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
sunset_mission
Entheonaut



Registered: 01/22/11
Posts: 5,767
Loc: NYC (Intra Deitate...)
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
#15415288 - 11/23/11 10:14 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If it apparently reliably explains DNA replication but at the same time is considered a false theory, how in any way is it deemed "central dogma"...?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: sunset_mission]
#15415296 - 11/23/11 10:16 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sunset_mission said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
sunset_mission said: Except that oftentimes the faith in theories postulated by the scientist can be proven or disproven through trials enacted to reach such ends, at which point the faith either becomes a truth/fact or, if proven to be wrong, simply fades.
The faith which the religious devotee places in certain things cannot be proven or disproven, thus it remains as merely faith.
so prove or disprove the singularity/big bang theory to me even though it violates the laws of energy conservation prove or disprove abiogenesis by one of the several models that are popular
you cannot so we need to take it on faith just as with any other religion
So what you're trying to imply is, that faith is as central a component to science as it is to religion then? Is that correct?
you certainly seem to have a lot of faith in science
what I'm saying is that based on your criteria, science is faith based and thus a religion because certain things in science cannot be proven or disproven because it's impossible to perform experiments to create the universe from the unknown
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: sunset_mission]
#15415297 - 11/23/11 10:16 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Because it's taught in classes as the means by which DNA is replicated. Because there's no truer theory to explain how DNA is replicated.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
propensity
۞̷ ̶۞̷ ̶



Registered: 01/06/10
Posts: 11,056
Loc: Bedrock America
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: realfuzzhead]
#15415298 - 11/23/11 10:16 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
realfuzzhead said:
Quote:
propensity said: I never said anything about the validity of either science or religion.
I didn't even say they were trying to complete the same task.
Simply that science requires faith in your perception.
ok well you replied to my reply on both validity and the fact that they are trying to accomplish the same thing, that they are trying to understand the universe better, so i assumed your reply had to do with the context of my post
and it requires faith in your perception to a point but, i mean, a computer fucking work while it works while others built just like it work for a billion other people in this world. You don't have to go deep into a mind trance or have a vision, science just works. That's because science is just the direct observation of our universe, so while it may require some faith that "reality is real" it also works for billions of different people simultaniously and seperately from one another. It's just a description of how stuff works, to the best of our knowledge, and these things can't just work for one person subjectively to be adopted into the body of science, they must be confirmed by anyone , regardless of authority..
it only takes a quick glance to spot the subjectivity and faith in religion, you must look much deeper into science
Why are you trying to convince me of this? I've made no claims either way.
--------------------
۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟͢ www.cactophage.com ۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟͢ ̸ۨ͜۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆ͯ̑͘ ̶̖̭ͧ͛ͬ͑ͣͦ̍ͧ͐͟Dolphins of Dank۞̷̛̗̗͉͇̰̅͒ͯͩ̆
|
Ieponumos
Mycophile/Phytophile


Registered: 09/02/09
Posts: 4,850
|
|
Quote:
realfuzzhead said:
Quote:
propensity said: I never said anything about the validity of either science or religion.
I didn't even say they were trying to complete the same task.
Simply that science requires faith in your perception.
ok well you replied to my reply on both validity and the fact that they are trying to accomplish the same thing, that they are trying to understand the universe better, so i assumed your reply had to do with the context of my post
and it requires faith in your perception to a point but, i mean, a computer fucking work while it works while others built just like it work for a billion other people in this world. You don't have to go deep into a mind trance or have a vision, science just works. That's because science is just the direct observation of our universe, so while it may require some faith that "reality is real" it also works for billions of different people simultaniously and seperately from one another. It's just a description of how stuff works, to the best of our knowledge, and these things can't just work for one person subjectively to be adopted into the body of science, they must be confirmed by anyone , regardless of authority..
it only takes a quick glance to spot the subjectivity and faith in religion, you must look much deeper into science
This. The point of science is to make everything as objective as humanly possible. When properly done, scientific procedure accounts for errors, explicitly stating them. A scientific journal is meant to be provide within it EXACTLY ALL of the information required to reproduce an experiment. Tangibility, reproducibility, and accuracy are all essential components of true science.
I know this is somewhat idealistic, but most scientist do try to hold up to truth. Some people are intentionally vague, some are paid to lie and do the bidding of evil, but even sometimes they inadvertently find the truth anyways.
Edited by Ieponumos (11/23/11 10:24 PM)
|
sunset_mission
Entheonaut



Registered: 01/22/11
Posts: 5,767
Loc: NYC (Intra Deitate...)
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
|
Re: "I teach logic, mother fucker." Professor Confronts Preacher on Campus [Re: Prisoner#1]
#15415355 - 11/23/11 10:27 PM (12 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
sunset_mission said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
sunset_mission said: Except that oftentimes the faith in theories postulated by the scientist can be proven or disproven through trials enacted to reach such ends, at which point the faith either becomes a truth/fact or, if proven to be wrong, simply fades.
The faith which the religious devotee places in certain things cannot be proven or disproven, thus it remains as merely faith.
so prove or disprove the singularity/big bang theory to me even though it violates the laws of energy conservation prove or disprove abiogenesis by one of the several models that are popular
you cannot so we need to take it on faith just as with any other religion
So what you're trying to imply is, that faith is as central a component to science as it is to religion then? Is that correct?
you certainly seem to have a lot of faith in science
what I'm saying is that based on your criteria, science is faith based and thus a religion because certain things in science cannot be proven or disproven because it's impossible to perform experiments to create the universe from the unknown
You misunderstand me though, as I wasn't trying to put forth any sort of criteria in regards to faith for science and religion, I was simply observing how the mechanics of faith function within them. I said that oftentimes the faith in scientific theories can be proven or disproven. Every other time, if the theory is neither proven nor disproven then it remains just that, a theory.
Just because it requires faith for a religion to properly operate does not equate to anything which is founded, at least partially, upon faith in itself to become a religion. You bring up the good point that certain things in science cannot be proven or disproven thus leading to there being some degree of faith being involved in it, likewise with religion. So in the end, it's nothing more than where a person chooses to direct their faith, depending on what resonates greater with them, science or religion. However, science is not a religion. That would be like saying that just because you have faith in your favorite baseball team to win, means that the NY Yankees have become a religion.
|
|