Karma

hackenslash · **#281** by **hackenslash** » Apr 01, 2014 10:44 am

But not anthropocentric, no, not a bit. :lol:

surreptitious57 · **#282** by **surreptitious57** » Apr 01, 2014 1:58 pm

CharlieM wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
and there is absolutely no evidence for the divine

Depends what we class as evidence

Whatever it is it would have to be subject to the rigours of the scientific method

That is to say it has to be observable and repeatable and verifiable

You obviously think that you have have some so please present it

You have brought up a good point and worth discussing

Richard Carrier who in no way entertains the idea of the divine had this to say

I had powerful mystical visions, which only confirmed further that I was on the right track. These ranged from the the simple
to the fantastic. The simplest and most common was that clarity of an almost drug-like wonder, perceiving everything striking the senses as one unified whole. It is hard to describe this. Normally, your attention is focused, on something you are looking at or listening to, or in a semi-dream-state of reverie, but with a medatative sense of attention this focus and dreaminess vanishes and you are immersed in a total, holistic sense of the real. It is both magnificent and calming. It humbles you, and brings you to the realization of how beautiful simply living is, and how trivial all your worries and difficulties are. Profound insights about the world would strike me whenever in such a state, leading far more readily and powerfully to an understanding of myself

and the world than studying or reasoning ever did

We could never know the divine through a definition in the same way I could never know you if someone gave me their
definition of you. It can only be known by experience and I would say a first step on the road to that experience is the
feeling that everything is a unified whole

It is not just Carrier who has experienced the unity of reality and there are exercises designed to bring us to this unity. These exercises can be repeated and verified by anyone who is sincere in the practice of them. They do not involve the use of drugs
or any dangerous or dubious practices. They are just a continuation and concentration of normal human attributes. Our senses give us nothing but a disconnected jumble of data. Human thinking is the activity that takes the separate data and combines them into a unity. Expansion of consciousness leads us further on this path which we have already begun to travel. Study any animal, they have no interest in taking this path onward by furthering their thought processes. Their thinking goes towards satisfying their immediate needs, aquiring food, escaping from predators, copulating and so on

Anyone who expands their consciousness into the unity preceived by Richard Carrier
relates this as a real experience and not just a subjective feeling inside their heads

Carrier is an atheist so using his words to prove the divine is not convincing at all. What he is actually describing here
is not evidence of any such thing any way but of natural chemical processes that have a perfect scientific explanation
For it is now understood how positive mental states can be achieved and that by is the release of endorphins that are
pleasure receptors in the brain. And what Carrier experienced was a powerful endorphin release that resulted in those
feelings of euphoria. And so nothing to do with the divine at all. I asked you for evidence and you failed to provide any

CharlieM · **#283** by **CharlieM** » Apr 01, 2014 2:54 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Well the fact that we are the last mammal species to appear in evolution does make us a special case.

Well, your mistake is to equate the present with the conclusion of history. Where the fuck did you come up with that, I wonder?

Humans are the ones who have taken evolution a stage further than any other creatures.

Oh, you can fucking stop right there. "Creatures" is a word that already assumes creation. You fucked up, because if I didn't already know you're a creationist, I do now. I myself don't particularly mind if you want to adopt a brain-dead philosophy like creationism, but why do you want to recite your articles of faith to me? Is this some sort of cross you bear among a community of atheists?

I see nothing wrong with using the word,"creature". Its a bit old-fashioned maybe, but it is a common word and everyone knows what it means. And I'm not using articles of faith any more than others here do.

Why would I feel my interactions here as a cross to bear? There are many posters here who say they have schooled other posters in the past. Well if they school people then they must be teachers. And I love to learn, so, to me, this is a pleasure, not something I have to bear.

Cito di Pense wrote:Here's what you're saying: God established evolution as the procedure for arriving at humans. Why don't you just get to the point and explain God's intention in arriving at humans so circuitously?

No that's not what I'm saying. Everything in heaven and earth, the whole cosmos, is subject to evolution. But it is not a blind evolution. That is why I say that a single life from zygote to death is an evolution, because I am using the word in a way that it was originally intended. Evolution is like a flower unravelling from the bud or a butterfly emerging from the chrysalis. Earthly evolution is a naturally unfolding of consciousness.

Cito di Pense wrote:Isn't that because even you can see that Young Earth Creationism is pure bollocks, and you need some more-circuitous bollocks to try to bamboozle the skeptics that your belief in God is not quite fully as idiotic a construction as anyone else's belief in God?

Well I do think that Young Earth Creationists misinterpret scripture, but I'm not out to bamboozle anyone. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should believe in God, I'm trying to put across what I see as objective reality.

Cito di Pense wrote:Here's a clue for you then, Charlie: Don't use idiotic fucking language like 'creatures' to talk about biology. God-beliefs are human attempts to mitigate human insignificance to anyone but humans, which is no fun for people without dogs or kids to contemplate. What's truly contemptible is the meekness of your effort to conceal it. Believe in God, Charlie. Own it!

I don't try to conceal anything. There are three spheres of life which distinguish us humans from animals. They are science, art and religion (or if you prefer philosophy of life).

Science is a search for truth which applies to everyone, it is knowledge which can be shared by all.

Religion should be for each individual. It should be up to each individual to work out their own philosophy of life for themselves without any pressure or coersion from anyone else. It should be developed by each individual for herself or himself as an individual.

Art is like the middle ground. Through art the individual expresses his or her inward feelings outwardly.

hackenslash · **#284** by **hackenslash** » Apr 01, 2014 3:06 pm

CharlieM wrote:Science is a search for truth

There's your malfunction.

surreptitious57 · **#285** by **surreptitious57** » Apr 01, 2014 3:28 pm

Charlie : science investigates phenomena but has nothing to say about
the nature of truth because that is a question for philosophy or religion

Is art the middle ground between science and religion ? According to Russell it is actually philosophy
Science references what can be objectively determined while religion references what can not and
philosophy is stuck somewhere between the two trying to be as objective as the former but mostly
being as subjective as the latter and that is because most ideas can not be subject to falsification

Cito di Pense · **#286** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 01, 2014 5:05 pm

CharlieM wrote:Everything in heaven and earth, the whole cosmos, is subject to evolution. But it is not a blind evolution.

Blind with respect to what? Woooooooo!?

CharlieM wrote:I am using the word in a way that it was originally intended.

Ah, so. You know what is intended. Please to be bending a spoon.

CharlieM wrote:Earthly evolution is a naturally unfolding of consciousness.

The horse you rode in on. Is lame.

CharlieM wrote:I'm trying to put across what I see as objective reality.

Is there any reason to take you seriously, other than that it might insult the horse you rode in on? I don't want to hear about your fee-fees. Not that my contempt will do anything but spur you on to greater and greater wibble.

CharlieM wrote:There are three spheres of life which distinguish us humans from animals. They are science, art and religion (or if you prefer philosophy of life).

The horse you rode in on. Is lame. What is it about art, science, and religion that you think have the special sauce? To me they are just responses to the world. I mean, woo is in there, but please to bend a spoon with it.

CharlieM wrote:Science is a search for truth which applies to everyone, it is knowledge which can be shared by all.

Ideally yes. You missed the boat, though.

Goldenmane · **#287** by **Goldenmane** » Apr 01, 2014 10:38 pm

CharlieM wrote: I'm trying to put across what I see as objective reality.

That's the problem right there.

surreptitious57 · **#288** by **surreptitious57** » Apr 01, 2014 10:54 pm

CharlieM wrote:
I am trying to put across what I see as objective reality

What you or anyone else sees as objective reality is anything but

For once you start describing it that is when it becomes subjective

Though some definitions are more objective than others but even so

CharlieM · **#289** by **CharlieM** » Apr 02, 2014 2:40 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
CharlieM wrote:

Depends what we class as evidence

Whatever it is it would have to be subject to the rigours of the scientific method

That is to say it has to be observable and repeatable and verifiable

You obviously think that you have have some so please present it

You have brought up a good point and worth discussing

Richard Carrier who in no way entertains the idea of the divine had this to say

I had powerful mystical visions, which only confirmed further that I was on the right track. These ranged from the the simple
to the fantastic. The simplest and most common was that clarity of an almost drug-like wonder, perceiving everything striking the senses as one unified whole. It is hard to describe this. Normally, your attention is focused, on something you are looking at or listening to, or in a semi-dream-state of reverie, but with a medatative sense of attention this focus and dreaminess vanishes and you are immersed in a total, holistic sense of the real. It is both magnificent and calming. It humbles you, and brings you to the realization of how beautiful simply living is, and how trivial all your worries and difficulties are. Profound insights about the world would strike me whenever in such a state, leading far more readily and powerfully to an understanding of myself

and the world than studying or reasoning ever did

We could never know the divine through a definition in the same way I could never know you if someone gave me their
definition of you. It can only be known by experience and I would say a first step on the road to that experience is the
feeling that everything is a unified whole

It is not just Carrier who has experienced the unity of reality and there are exercises designed to bring us to this unity. These exercises can be repeated and verified by anyone who is sincere in the practice of them. They do not involve the use of drugs
or any dangerous or dubious practices. They are just a continuation and concentration of normal human attributes. Our senses give us nothing but a disconnected jumble of data. Human thinking is the activity that takes the separate data and combines them into a unity. Expansion of consciousness leads us further on this path which we have already begun to travel. Study any animal, they have no interest in taking this path onward by furthering their thought processes. Their thinking goes towards satisfying their immediate needs, aquiring food, escaping from predators, copulating and so on

Anyone who expands their consciousness into the unity preceived by Richard Carrier
relates this as a real experience and not just a subjective feeling inside their heads

Carrier is an atheist so using his words to prove the divine is not convincing at all.

Where did I say it proves the divine? And why should being an atheist prevent him from having objective experiences? When he says that he was, "immersed in a total, holistic sense of the real", are you saying he was lying or deluded maybe?

surreptitious57 wrote:What he is actually describing here is not evidence of any such thing any way but of natural chemical processes that have a perfect scientific explanation.

Yes and your replies to me have a perfect scientific explanation. An area of your brain sends signals through some neurons to the muscles of your arm and hands. The movement produced changes the pixels on a screen and data is sent via the internet to other screens where it can produce images in various eyeballs. These image signals are sent via the optic nerves to my brain. These are natural chemical processes that have a perfect scientific explanation which is all true enough but it doesn't say anything about the essence of the communication between us.

surreptitious57 wrote:For it is now understood how positive mental states can be achieved and that by is the release of endorphins that are pleasure receptors in the brain. And what Carrier experienced was a powerful endorphin release that resulted in those feelings of euphoria. And so nothing to do with the divine at all. I asked you for evidence and you failed to provide any

You are making assumptions about the cause of his experiences. Put it this way, if a stripper performed in front of your average hot-blooded man, there would be plenty chemicals released within him which affect his feelings. Would these chemicals be the cause of his experience or the means by which they were activated? Surely it is the stripper who is the cause and the chemicals the means.

CharlieM · **#290** by **CharlieM** » Apr 02, 2014 2:48 am

hackenslash wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Science is a search for truth

There's your malfunction.

Knowledge

...It is thus an irony of proper scientific method that one must doubt even when correct, in the hopes that this practice will lead to greater convergence on the truth in general.

Is it equally true to say that the earth revolves round the sun, the sun revolves round the earth and the earth is stationary? If science is not a search for the truth then it should hold that any of these positions is equally valid. Why do scientists accept the first statement as being correct but not the second and third?

From the University of Georgia

...no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth.

Do you not agree that science is always looking for that which accords with reality and if something is shown not to accord with reality then it is rejected?

hackenslash · **#291** by **hackenslash** » Apr 02, 2014 4:17 am

CharlieM wrote:
Knowledge
...It is thus an irony of proper scientific method that one must doubt even when correct, in the hopes that this practice will lead to greater convergence on the truth in general.

Err, the word in question was 'science'. If you're going to engage in the fallacious argument from popularity known as argumentum ad lexicum you should at least be sufficiently rigorous to commit the fallacy using the correct fucking word.

Is it equally true to say that the earth revolves round the sun, the sun revolves round the earth and the earth is stationary?

Hmmm, whether to go with the 'physics above your pay-grade' response or to cite the fallacy of the complex question, or maybe some other in the range of equally valid answers. Decisions, decisions...

I think I'll choose...

Yes.

If science is not a search for the truth then it should hold that any of these positions is equally valid.

Why?

Why do scientists accept the first statement as being correct but not the second and third?

Do they do that? Really?

From the University of Georgia
...no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth.

Nice! Cite a source that describes orbital mechanics with the precise phrase 'it's just a theory' and then work out what your prize will be for guessing into which orifice you can insert that.

Honestly, I couldn't write comedy like that.

Do you not agree that science is always looking for that which accords with reality and if something is shown not to accord with reality then it is rejected?

Surely I've answered that already?

surreptitious57 · **#292** by **surreptitious57** » Apr 02, 2014 4:22 am

CharlieM wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Carrier is an atheist so using his words to
prove the divine is not convincing at all

Where did I say it proves the divine ?

Your post was in response to me asking you for evidence of it after you
implied it existed. But you failed to provide any so on that basis then
either there is none but it exists or there is none and it does not exist

CharlieM · **#293** by **CharlieM** » Apr 02, 2014 1:12 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:Charlie : science investigates phenomena but has nothing to say about
the nature of truth because that is a question for philosophy or religion

I don't think that any of you who have responded to the end of this post have understood what I'm saying. It could very well be that, due to the way I worded things, I haven't made my point clearly enough. I'll try to clarify.

Science tries to find laws to apply to phenomena. Take the combined gas law. With everything else being held constant the pressure in a gas is proportional to the temperature and inversely proportional to the volume. ie, to take one instance, if everything including the temperature remains constant, when the volume decreases the pressure increases. Now this law is true for everyone, an individual cannot say, "I do not want to follow that law, I want to follow the law where pressure is proportional to volume.

On the other hand a person's religion, for it to have any true meaning, must come from within, and not be applied from without like scientific laws. If it is imposed from without as in a state religion then it has very little meaning. this is why I don't agree with people going round the doors trying to persuade people to join their religion.

In other words an individual should be free to follow their own choice in whichever religion or philosophy of life that they deem appropriate. But its meaningless to say that an individual should be free to make up their own personal scientific law.

surreptitious57 wrote:Is art the middle ground between science and religion ? According to Russell it is actually philosophy
Science references what can be objectively determined while religion references what can not and
philosophy is stuck somewhere between the two trying to be as objective as the former but mostly
being as subjective as the latter and that is because most ideas can not be subject to falsification

IMO you can juxtapose science, religion, philosophy, art and anything else in any way you wish, but you will need to justify why you have given them this relationship and others should be able to see your reasoning and judge it accordingly. The reason why I think art is a middle ground between religion and science is that art originates from within the individual who expresses herself or himself in some outward fashion. And most artists would like their work to be available to all.

Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

Regina · **#294** by **Regina** » Apr 02, 2014 1:17 pm

CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

If that's what art is then most of what we call art does not belong in that category.

Cito di Pense · **#295** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 02, 2014 1:26 pm

CharlieM wrote:Take the combined gas law. With everything else being held constant the pressure in a gas is proportional to the temperature and inversely proportional to the volume. ie, to take one instance, if everything including the temperature remains constant, when the volume decreases the pressure increases. Now this law is true for everyone, an individual cannot say, "I do not want to follow that law, I want to follow the law where pressure is proportional to volume.

No, Charlie, that's the ideal gas law, and it doesn't apply to gases in the laboratory, except that their density is vanishingly small at temperatures not near where laboratory gases condense into liquid. Ideal gases do not condense. Get an education, Charlie. You're out of your depth on this one.

CharlieM wrote:On the other hand a person's religion, for it to have any true meaning, must come from within, and not be applied from without like scientific laws.

Then what in the furry fuck are you doing talking to strangers about religion? It's none of your fucking business what relationship anyone else has to religion. Get an education, and in this case, try to signify something specific with the words you use.

CharlieM · **#296** by **CharlieM** » Apr 02, 2014 1:41 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Take the combined gas law. With everything else being held constant the pressure in a gas is proportional to the temperature and inversely proportional to the volume. ie, to take one instance, if everything including the temperature remains constant, when the volume decreases the pressure increases. Now this law is true for everyone, an individual cannot say, "I do not want to follow that law, I want to follow the law where pressure is proportional to volume.

No, Charlie, that's the ideal gas law, and it doesn't apply to gases in the laboratory, except that their density is vanishingly small at temperatures not near where laboratory gases condense into liquid. Ideal gases do not condense. Get an education, Charlie. You're out of your depth on this one.

Your still not getting it. It doesn't matter what we call scientific laws, they exist and have been discovered. Try taking a propane cannister and throw it on a fire. Are you going to hang about to see if the pressure increases with the increase of temperature? I don't think so!

Water is a compound made up of the elements hydrogen and oxygen. This is a scientific fact and it is true no matter if any individual does not agree with this fact. It is true for all.

CharlieM · **#297** by **CharlieM** » Apr 02, 2014 2:06 pm

Regina wrote:
CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

If that's what art is then most of what we call art does not belong in that category.

In what way is art not an outward expression of inward creativity? Why do artists have exhibitions, musician concerts, and so on?

surreptitious57 · **#298** by **surreptitious57** » Apr 02, 2014 2:07 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Is it equally true to say that the earth revolves round the sun the sun revolves round the earth and the earth is stationary ? If science is not a search for the truth then it should hold that any of these positions is equally valid. Why do scientists accept
the first statement as being correct but not the second and third ?

Philosophy and religion reference truth not science. Science references phenomena but has nothing to say about truth or reality or existence or meaning or purpose. Just phenomena. In other words it answers how questions not why ones. This
is sometimes semantically confusing because how and why questions can be interchangeable but the distinction is strong enough to understand the difference between the two in spite of the ambiguity

Regina · **#299** by **Regina** » Apr 02, 2014 2:13 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Regina wrote:
CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

If that's what art is then most of what we call art does not belong in that category.

In what way is art not an outward expression of inward creativity? Why do artists have exhibitions, musician concerts, and so on?

First off, what's "creativity"?
Secondly, you did say "individuality", which is not synonymous with creativity. An artist expressing his/her "individuality" (whatever that might be) is a modern concept. You think van Eyck expressed his "individuality" when he painted the Gent altarpiece?
PS: Artists have exhibitions because they need to pay the rent, just like you and I.

Cito di Pense · **#300** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 02, 2014 3:58 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Take the combined gas law. With everything else being held constant the pressure in a gas is proportional to the temperature and inversely proportional to the volume. ie, to take one instance, if everything including the temperature remains constant, when the volume decreases the pressure increases. Now this law is true for everyone, an individual cannot say, "I do not want to follow that law, I want to follow the law where pressure is proportional to volume.

No, Charlie, that's the ideal gas law, and it doesn't apply to gases in the laboratory, except that their density is vanishingly small at temperatures not near where laboratory gases condense into liquid. Ideal gases do not condense. Get an education, Charlie. You're out of your depth on this one.

Your still not getting it. It doesn't matter what we call scientific laws, they exist and have been discovered. Try taking a propane cannister and throw it on a fire. Are you going to hang about to see if the pressure increases with the increase of temperature? I don't think so!

Water is a compound made up of the elements hydrogen and oxygen. This is a scientific fact and it is true no matter if any individual does not agree with this fact. It is true for all.

You're heading for "not even wrong" territory, Charlie. You should listen to Feynman talk about thrushes, and then you'll have a chance at understanding that writing cartoon sentences about scientific observations produces only triviality. Your concept of 'true for all' is full of triviality. "Made up of elements hydrogen and oxygen" is not the fucking half of it. Not five per cent of it. Get an education. Your ignorance of the scope of scientific research is prodigious.

Karma

Re: Karma

Ads by Google

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Ads by Google

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Ads by Google

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Re: Karma

Who is online