User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 88

  1. #51
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    It's not personal character assassination: it's holding you (a skeptic and rationalist) to the same standards to which you would hold (for example) a Young Earth Creationist.
    I know it feels good to attack religious people, but I'm not going to let you get away with unfounded assertions which you would not be able to defend using your own standards of evidence; let alone changing the standards of evidence when they suit your whim.
    Can you give me (say from DSM-IV) a good set of criteria for diagnosing someone as schizotypal, and then show to me beyond a reasonable doubt, that the founders or main propagators of various religious faiths unambiguously satisfied those criteria? And can you then show that your sources upon which you rely for their behaviour, are therefore historically accurate, instead of you just cherry picking examples when they suit your desires, and otherwise dismissing the sources as unreliable?

    If not, you're merely masturbating. Don't do that online.

    As Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
    I don't actually attack religious people personally, I don't even usually initiate the attack on a religious ideology even though I did initiate it in this thread, that's usually @zago 's job.

    You, too, missed the point of my schizophrenic argument. I used that assertion to help tie this conversation back to the original one we had where we were debating about Moses and the crossing of the Red Sea over a man lying. You arrived at the same logical conclusion as I did with your miracle argument when faced with an assertion that religion was invented by a bunch of schizophrenics, that the other party wasn't citing objective, clear evidence to support this claim. My argument/assertion here was a ruse, whether or not I personally believe it (subjectively) or not.

  2. #52
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    I would define religion as psychotic by definition: "Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) ; Seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations)."

    Psychotic people converse with imaginary beings, right?

    Similarly, when religious people pray, they are completely deluded and speaking to nothing as if someone real is actually listening and sometimes replying. That's psychotic.

    Edit: looks like I was right on cue @Alea_iacta_est

  3. #53
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I think it would be ridiculous to discount the feeling people have that drives them to various religions.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    (...)

    And we have Muslims stealing the authority of science with doctorates in Islamic Science.

    And the New Age steals the authority of science with mbti.
    Whats this crap? :P

    Since when does MBTI have anything to do with New Age?

    And "Islamic Science" just seems to be a name, nothing more.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Most of modern science is based on mathematical evidence, in fact, science is mathematics. The entire field of Quantum Mechanics is based on advanced mathematics; Chemistry would be impossible without mathematics, meaning that Biochemists wouldn't be able to manufacture basic drugs like aspirin and would require archaic, herbal treatment. You are attempting to group social sciences with the remainder of the actual sciences, and it is a glaring error. Social sciences are entirely subjective and are not truly science, they simply utilize the title of "science" to justify their own, personalized, idiosyncratic ideology.
    I think science = mathematics + empirical facts. The interpretation of the latter isn't always that simple, though we can certainly still achieve some things without a full understanding of how they work.

    Btw otherwise I agree that science is much more sensible than the Bible ;p


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Let's simplify this shall we, we are on a personality forum after all.

    Deductive logic is introverted thinking, how does the world make sense to me?

    Inductive logic is extroverted thinking, how does the world actually work? The entirety of Science is built on the foundation of extroverted logic, i.e. this is evidence that is clearly in front of us, what conclusions can we make about these observations?
    No, why do you even bring MBTI into this? Ti != deductive logic. "How does the world make sense to me" doesn't have to involve deductive logic, at all.


    People that use deductive logic look at a phenomenon they haven't seen before and conclude immediately what it is based on how it seems to be to them. People that use inductive logic look at a phenomenon they haven't seen before and look at exactly what it is before drawing any conclusions or personal understandings.
    Hmm I relate to the latter. But still don't agree that this is a Ti vs Te thing


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    With miracles, we don't always have strict boundaries that define what a miracle really is. At what point is something miraculous and at what point is it not? I could claim that it is a miracle that I am functioning as a multi-cellular organism that acts very much akin to a machine, which is incredible in of itself, but it isn't truly miraculous because this has always happened, people have always been multi-cellular organisms that act like machines. (This argument seems a lot like Si come to think of it)
    No, this argument doesn't seem a lot like Si. This argument is just an argument.

    Really, don't overdo the application of MBTI in life.


    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    ...incidentally, Guy 1 forgot (or excluded ex hypothesi) the possibility that God really did do it Himself, by means not shown. ("Any sufficiently advanced miracle is indistinguishable from technology.")
    Guy 2 is implicitly (and inconsistently) assuming that God must work only through natural means.
    So what? It's (God doing it) just one of many unlikely possibilities.

    And why is it inconsistent if Guy 2 assumes "God" would work only through natural means? It's no worse for an assumption than assuming that "God" works through other means too. Or the assumption that a "God" really exists in this specific form.


    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    it *appears* you are relying implicitly upon philsophical naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism.
    So what, is that worse than overt religion?

    "Any non-miraculous explanation is to be preferred under all circumstances to a supernatural one; and if it
    really looks like *that* much of a foregone conclusion, dismiss the episode as fanciful altogether, or at least
    re-cast it into a blurred-by-retelling account of a *real*, but nominally similar event, which *can* be
    explained by natural means."
    Now praytell, what's wrong with that approach of devaluing the supernatural exactly? Nothing. You just seem to be really distorting the reasoning of people who don't believe in miracles. It's not about dismissing and recasting stuff, it's about an honest attempt to find the most realistic explanation. And yes, it does come with the assumption that God and miracles aren't realistic at this point. This is no worse an assumption than assuming that God does exist. Do you think it's a more arbitrary assumption or what?


    I will just add the question for now, from your point of view, how is one supposed to know (a priori, or ab initio, depending on your point of view), "how likely" it is that God will intervene? Not a refutation of your position but a logistical difficulty in implementing it...
    You can assign any number to that likelihood but none of them will be any "better" than the others.

    However in my worldview, certain numbers seem to create inconsistencies with how things actually seem to be. So I decided to go for a low number for the answer for "how likely it is that God intervenes in such a fashion".

    Really, I do not even need to bring science into my reasoning about that. Consider how the world works on its own so nicely, you can even assume that God created the laws of nature etc etc. Now, if we assume God has indeed done some miracle somewhere, will it not violate the rules God (or not God, doesn't matter) created in the first place? Yes it will. For what reason? No reason. I do not accept it as a "reason" that God is this unfair discriminating kind of God who picks on one nation and favours another nation on a small planet in the vast Universe. This kind of action ends up being inconsistent in my opinion thus I reject the idea that it's highly possible that there was a miracle by God.

    Good luck refuting my reasoning. It's your choice to believe in an unfair God, I wish you luck to that. I will not do that myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    1) who says miracles are an "explanation"? Considering how miracles "usually are" so to speak -- to the *participants* and not to chat-room dwellers millenia later, in a different language and culture -- "explanation" (especially ones philosophically satsifying and watertight to critics), is usually the *last* thing on their mind.
    2) "He was unable to do many mighty works there because of their lack of faith" -- miracles are a *personal* expression of God, within Christianity, much as a relationship with another person...and if you rub God the wrong way or piss Him off, He's not obligated to jump through hoops
    3) because of this God does not appear uniform in the way (say) colligative properties of water are
    Unrelated BS about a BS down-to-earth/overly concrete/unspiritual unfair human-made image of God


    4) "well, we can't know likelihood for God, but we *can* estimate people lying" -->
    "what are you looking for?"
    "my wallet"
    (helps him look)
    --half an hour later--
    "are you sure you dropped your wallet around here?"
    "no, I dropped it down the street and around the corner."
    !!! -what! why are we looking *here*--!!!
    "well, it's dark over there, the light's better over here."
    It's a pretty bad strategy trying to explain your viewpoint by an analogy. Analogies are never perfect. Why not instead deal with the real thing directly? Why avoid it by using imperfect analogies?


    And "provable" is good, except that the tools and assumptions for that are (uniformity of causes in a closed system, equal a priori probabilities, Occam's razor) geared towards parsimony in models (to enforce eliminating false *positives*), and don't do so well at eliminating false *negatives*; and don't do so well towards personal agents with sentience and choice (God).
    1) yes it would be nice if it could eliminate false negatives, I agree on that one
    2) do you know of better tools? we can only use our human thinking so don't expect anything perfect.
    3) why would this have to explain God stuff?

    OK I'm done for now.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    I would define religion as psychotic by definition: "Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) ; Seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations)."

    Psychotic people converse with imaginary beings, right?

    Similarly, when religious people pray, they are completely deluded and speaking to nothing as if someone real is actually listening and sometimes replying. That's psychotic.

    Edit: looks like I was right on cue @Alea_iacta_est
    Man, I'm completely exhausted, I got absolutely no sleep last night and barely any the night before that, and I'm barely awake enough to keep my eyes open, let alone combat a multi-front argument. Props to @grey_beard for utterly drowning me in evidence, well argued.

    And yes, perfect timing.

  6. #56
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    I think it would be ridiculous to discount the feeling people have that drives them to various religions.
    I do too. We should learn more about that feeling. It's one thing to have some feeling and speculate about it. It's another to go insane and turn it into a bunch of dogma.

  7. #57
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I don't actually attack religious people personally, I don't even usually initiate the attack on a religious ideology even though I did initiate it in this thread, that's usually @zago 's job.

    You, too, missed the point of my schizophrenic argument. I used that assertion to help tie this conversation back to the original one we had where we were debating about Moses and the crossing of the Red Sea over a man lying. You arrived at the same logical conclusion as I did with your miracle argument when faced with an assertion that religion was invented by a bunch of schizophrenics, that the other party wasn't citing objective, clear evidence to support this claim. My argument/assertion here was a ruse, whether or not I personally believe it (subjectively) or not.
    I knew I was picking up something disingenuous, hence the harshness.
    But -- there are two issues here.
    1) If one is a naturalist, all supernatural accounts are to be rejected.
    Harshly, as some will; gently, as one of the mods, who holds that socially useful metaphors and truths may be transmitted therein (recall that C.S. Lewis, before converting to Christianity, once told Tolkien that
    parts of Christianity were "lies breathed through silver"); pityingly, as some do who hold that time, oral vs. written transmission, and the same factors which mutate languages and cultures also act upon legends.
    2) If one is a supernaturalist, there is a different set of distinctions.
    Are you a Deist or somesuch, God simply watches, or (Calvin and Hobbes) torments, or (similar to The Watchmen) points and laughs?
    Or like the Greco-Roman gods, who play favorites and sleep with the hot babes (or studs) when it takes their fancy?
    Accept all accounts from all sources?
    Accept only those from your faith tradition?
    Try to pick your way through which ones seem most "reasonable" (as if?)
    And what rule does one use? A priori, reliance upon authority, New Age smorgasbord to suit oneself?
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  8. #58
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    I do too. We should learn more about that feeling. It's one thing to have some feeling and speculate about it. It's another to go insane and turn it into a bunch of dogma.
    It's another to make knee-jerk rejections and call that authoritative.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    I would define religion as psychotic by definition: "Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) ; Seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations)."

    Psychotic people converse with imaginary beings, right?

    Similarly, when religious people pray, they are completely deluded and speaking to nothing as if someone real is actually listening and sometimes replying. That's psychotic.
    No, a psychotic episode is nothing like the average person saying a religious prayer. Or were you here playing a ruse similar to Alea_iacta_est's?

    Anyway, I believe the average religious person doesn't actually hallucinate that there is a God standing in front of them. They are still in reality, they know where they are exactly etc. They just try to believe in some invisible being, some with more success than others, some with less success and more doubts in their mind and struggling because of it. And also struggling trying to keep all the mindless rules that their religion enforces. My point is, there's many ways people do religion. My mother for example, she's got a pretty healthy attitude to it, my sister much less so as far as I can see. They are both religious yep. Just my mother doesn't cause unnecessary negative feelings to herself with it while my sister does. Well that's how I see them

  10. #60
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    I do too. We should learn more about that feeling. It's one thing to have some feeling and speculate about it. It's another to go insane and turn it into a bunch of dogma.
    You were until recently a believer of Christ the Savior, correct?

Similar Threads

  1. Sciencebucks.com, the kickstarter of science funding?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 01:48 PM
  2. the Pinnacle of Science Fiction
    By Kingfisher in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 07:32 PM
  3. [NT] Worshiping at the altar of science.
    By ObeyBunny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
  4. Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 12:23 PM
  5. What is the purpose of Science Fiction?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO