Moderator: Community Team
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
crispybits wrote:I'm pretty sure some people will know my position on this, and others will incorrectly guess, but I have one question:
On the basis that it is entirely rational to say "I don't know" about things which science and rational thought cannot provide answers to, and therefore we should assume that there is an unknown amount of "stuff" which we do not know at present, what other position than rationalism (i.e saying we do not know) should we use to decide on the placeholder answers (the best guess for now admitting to lack of evidence or knowledge) to questions about this "stuff"?
GreecePwns wrote:The thought isn't "if it's not rational, it's not true."
The thought is "if it's true, it can be explained rationally." Whether or not we have the technological, scientific, etc. capabilities to do the explaining is is another thing entirely. If we had infinite knowledge and therefore infinite technological capabilities, everything in the world would most definitely be explained rationally.
Lootifer wrote:Sounds like you're more of an agnostic rather than an athiest Niet.
Dukasaur wrote:Well, science is an exceedingly useful tool. The one real drawback to it is that the more you understand the universe, the more you understand how pointless everything is. We really are nothing more than mindless animals. All our rationality doesn't change our path one inch from our programmed mandate to eat, drink, fight, and f*ck. Even if you're the world's greatest scientist, about to win the Nobel Prize, what does that mean? It means your Neanderthal brain is excited about being lauded and feted by your peers, because then they will give you the choicest cuts of the bison and access to the most fertile females.
Even if by some amazing feat you were to overcome your base instincts, none of it will matter. Eventually entropy claims everything. The universe expands, and eventually not even the simpler forms of matter will exists. Most people can't hope that their deeds will be remembered two weeks after their funeral, but even those who have accomplished greatness are not remembered more than a few decades by anyone except a few specialists in their field and students forced to (temporarily) note their existence in order to pass some kind of examination.
We "oooh" and "ahhh" over the "timeless" nature of the pyramids, but the 5 to 6 thousand years that they have stood is but an instant in geological time. Even at that, they are in piss-poor repair. All their treasures have been stolen, all their facing stones are gone, and even the structural stones on exposed faces are heavily worn and crumbling on the corners. And that's after a few thousand years. In a million years they'll be hillocks of sand. "Timeless" my fat ass. And in a few trillion years even "sand" will be a concept no longer capable of being framed, as fermions are too far apart to even form bosons.
Faced with the utter hopelessness that an honest assessment of reality brings, why shouldn't one retreat into a fantasy world of narcotics, religion, or computer games? If you're capable of the monumental self-deception required to believe in a personal God, you're well on your way to a happy and well-adjusted life. My God's bigger than your God! Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!
Just_essence wrote:I agree with Dukasaur. To enable ourselves to make any sort of conclusion, we base it on assumptions in order to be able to do anything with what we have. However, basing it on assumptions only means that you're making the problem easier by cutting out a gigantic portion with the assumptions. But that really is the only way to do something, isn't it? Otherwise the problem cannot be solved. We can only discover more and more sets of assumptions, which in piece gives us bit by bit anothe truth of the universe. But, in the end, if we try to discard the assumptions and piece it all together, it will be impossible for our minds, for having no assumptions and facts to hang on to, we can't understand anything, and it really is insanity. So really, the only way to view the universe is in pieces, but as a whole, we'll go mad.
nietzsche wrote:Lootifer wrote:Sounds like you're more of an agnostic rather than an athiest Niet.
Just look at the web. There's an big amount of sites on spirituality and cures for depression, mainly because science might set us free from the chains of religion, but at the same time it leave us feeling baseless. Our instinct tell us we need a deeper connection within ourselves, although reason tell us all we need is a big mac, a house in the suburbs and a nice car.
BigBallinStalin wrote:nietzsche wrote:Lootifer wrote:Sounds like you're more of an agnostic rather than an athiest Niet.
Just look at the web. There's an big amount of sites on spirituality and cures for depression, mainly because science might set us free from the chains of religion, but at the same time it leave us feeling baseless. Our instinct tell us we need a deeper connection within ourselves, although reason tell us all we need is a big mac, a house in the suburbs and a nice car.
No, it doesn't. For example, (1) I feel incomplete, and these material objects aren't doing enough for me. (2) Therefore, I should look into some religious practices.
(3) Ah, Buddhism. Hmm, meditation?
(4) <Tries it. Gets good results>
Wow, with reason, that was possible, but from nietz perspective it isn't.
Case closed.
Dukasaur wrote:Even if you're the world's greatest scientist, about to win the Nobel Prize, what does that mean? It means your Neanderthal brain is excited about being lauded and feted by your peers, because then they will give you the choicest cuts of the bison and access to the most fertile females.
nietzsche wrote:enough wacko talk or should i continue ?
Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Even if you're the world's greatest scientist, about to win the Nobel Prize, what does that mean? It means your Neanderthal brain is excited about being lauded and feted by your peers, because then they will give you the choicest cuts of the bison and access to the most fertile females.
You need to let me know which Nobel laureates you're hanging out with, because none of the ones I know of are what one would consider ladies' men.
Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Even if you're the world's greatest scientist, about to win the Nobel Prize, what does that mean? It means your Neanderthal brain is excited about being lauded and feted by your peers, because then they will give you the choicest cuts of the bison and access to the most fertile females.
You need to let me know which Nobel laureates you're hanging out with, because none of the ones I know of are what one would consider ladies' men.
nietzsche wrote:enough wacko talk or should i continue ?
nietzsche wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:nietzsche wrote:Lootifer wrote:Sounds like you're more of an agnostic rather than an athiest Niet.
Just look at the web. There's an big amount of sites on spirituality and cures for depression, mainly because science might set us free from the chains of religion, but at the same time it leave us feeling baseless. Our instinct tell us we need a deeper connection within ourselves, although reason tell us all we need is a big mac, a house in the suburbs and a nice car.
No, it doesn't. For example, (1) I feel incomplete, and these material objects aren't doing enough for me. (2) Therefore, I should look into some religious practices.
(3) Ah, Buddhism. Hmm, meditation?
(4) <Tries it. Gets good results>
Wow, with reason, that was possible, but from nietz perspective it isn't.
Case closed.
Question is, why did we think material objects were enough? Reason is great to explain things, only you need to know those things in advance. Plato knew this, I forget in which dialogue he mentions it. In fact, upon accepting responsibilty, one becomes better at using reason, don't use it for everything, but when it's needed, it's used without clouds of the dispair that trusting 100% in reason brings.
nietzsche wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Even if you're the world's greatest scientist, about to win the Nobel Prize, what does that mean? It means your Neanderthal brain is excited about being lauded and feted by your peers, because then they will give you the choicest cuts of the bison and access to the most fertile females.
You need to let me know which Nobel laureates you're hanging out with, because none of the ones I know of are what one would consider ladies' men.
They get one million dollars right? With that amount of money they surely can pay for fertility treatments for their wives.
BigBallinStalin wrote:nietzsche wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:nietzsche wrote:Lootifer wrote:Sounds like you're more of an agnostic rather than an athiest Niet.
Just look at the web. There's an big amount of sites on spirituality and cures for depression, mainly because science might set us free from the chains of religion, but at the same time it leave us feeling baseless. Our instinct tell us we need a deeper connection within ourselves, although reason tell us all we need is a big mac, a house in the suburbs and a nice car.
No, it doesn't. For example, (1) I feel incomplete, and these material objects aren't doing enough for me. (2) Therefore, I should look into some religious practices.
(3) Ah, Buddhism. Hmm, meditation?
(4) <Tries it. Gets good results>
Wow, with reason, that was possible, but from nietz perspective it isn't.
Case closed.
Question is, why did we think material objects were enough? Reason is great to explain things, only you need to know those things in advance. Plato knew this, I forget in which dialogue he mentions it. In fact, upon accepting responsibilty, one becomes better at using reason, don't use it for everything, but when it's needed, it's used without clouds of the dispair that trusting 100% in reason brings.
You do realize that with reason one can concede "I'm not 100% certain of X," right?
Currently, ITT you've been mischaracterizing advocates for reason or those subscribing solely to "the Rational mind."
We can both admit that people 'think' with reason as well as emotion. Emotion/feelings will always tinge our ability to reason, but that's okay to a degree.
The problem is when people significantly forego or discount reason, and heavily substitute it for feeling. Then, this method of thinking is applied to a huge scope of issues--not just love, god, or what have you, but almost everything. By foregoing reason and in turn failing to correct for cognitive bias, many people lead themselves and others astray--in the form of racism, prejudice, state socialism, etc.
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl