Author Topic: Oh dear.  (Read 1310 times)

Oh dear.
« on: January 15, 2018, 09:25:39 PM »
Well, for courtesy's sake, may as well start things here.

I'm difficult, alright?

1. Vegetarian. I've already cringed a bit at some remarks about using turtle shells as currency, since it would just result in yet another innocent species being imprisoned, tortured, and mass-slaughtered.

2. Biological realist. From all our best knowledge... Men and women are inherently different. Different ethnic groups have different population levels of various genes, including ones which effect behaviour and brain function.

3. Not a dogmatist. Gnostic atheists are little better than gnostic theists, to me--pretending you know more than you really do is always arrogant, even if the side you stick to is more likely to be right. Actually... even if you turned out to be 100% right, and it were absolutely proven, a poor argument that arrives at the correct conclusion is still a poor argument.

4. Nihilist. Specifically, meta-ethical emotivist, existential nihilist, epistemological solipsist. So, uh, spare me the ethos, eh? I probably won't listen. But if you have some semi-deranged pipe dreams to spit out at me because "hey it might technically maybe be possible kinda?" I'm all ears--if nothing else, imagination is one of our greatest gifts.

Soredeha... yorosiku onegaisimasu.

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2018, 09:30:24 PM »
Well, for courtesy's sake, may as well start things here.

I'm difficult, alright?

1. Vegetarian. I've already cringed a bit at some remarks about using turtle shells as currency, since it would just result in yet another innocent species being imprisoned, tortured, and mass-slaughtered.

2. Biological realist. From all our best knowledge... Men and women are inherently different. Different ethnic groups have different population levels of various genes, including ones which effect behaviour and brain function.

3. Not a dogmatist. Gnostic atheists are little better than gnostic theists, to me--pretending you know more than you really do is always arrogant, even if the side you stick to is more likely to be right. Actually... even if you turned out to be 100% right, and it were absolutely proven, a poor argument that arrives at the correct conclusion is still a poor argument.

4. Nihilist. Specifically, meta-ethical emotivist, existential nihilist, epistemological solipsist. So, uh, spare me the ethos, eh? I probably won't listen. But if you have some semi-deranged pipe dreams to spit out at me because "hey it might technically maybe be possible kinda?" I'm all ears--if nothing else, imagination is one of our greatest gifts.

Soredeha... yorosiku onegaisimasu.
Ummm.....welcome, I guess.  Oh yes, welcome to that large white charger you rode in on as well.

BTW, what is a 'gnostic atheist'??
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline aitm

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2018, 09:36:54 PM »

2.  Different ethnic groups have different population levels of various genes, including ones which effect behaviour and brain function.
well....this should be fascinating reading....
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Hydra009

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2018, 09:57:52 PM »
1. Vegetarian. I've already cringed a bit at some remarks about using turtle shells as currency, since it would just result in yet another innocent species being imprisoned, tortured, and mass-slaughtered.
This triggered you? Man, you must be really high strung!  I was talking about using shells in general as currency, which people have done historically.  I'm not aware of any resulting apocalypses.  The idea that they'd be mass-slaughtered for their shells never even occurred to me.  Also, wouldn't breeding turtles be the smart move there?

Quote
2. Biological realist. From all our best knowledge... Men and women are inherently different.
Well...yeah.  There are some pretty obvious differences, lol.  No one's denying that.  It's when you get into "women aren't logical, can't drive, etc" territory that there's furor.

Quote
Different ethnic groups have different population levels of various genes, including ones which effect behaviour and brain function.
Could you be more specific?  *hands rope*

Quote
3. Not a dogmatist. Gnostic atheists are little better than gnostic theists, to me--pretending you know more than you really do is always arrogant, even if the side you stick to is more likely to be right.
We've discussed the topic to death, but basically the gnostic atheists aren't really claiming to be able to "prove" that God doesn't exist - only that they're confident this God stuff is a human creation in the same vein as leprechauns and faeries and vampires.  Sure, one can't prove that faeries don't exist, but why should one consider that they do exist?

Quote
Actually... even if you turned out to be 100% right, and it were absolutely proven, a poor argument that arrives at the correct conclusion is still a poor argument.
True enough.

Quote
4. Nihilist. Specifically, meta-ethical emotivist, existential nihilist, epistemological solipsist. So, uh, spare me the ethos, eh? I probably won't listen. But if you have some semi-deranged pipe dreams to spit out at me because "hey it might technically maybe be possible kinda?" I'm all ears--if nothing else, imagination is one of our greatest gifts.
Sounds like you're bracing for some push-back there.  I don't know why exactly.  Existentialism and nihilism are two fairly common viewpoints around here.  Though the solipsism part raised a little bit of a red flag.

Soo...welcome?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 11:57:27 PM by Hydra009 »

Online Draconic Aiur

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2018, 10:01:26 PM »
Welcome to thee forum!

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2018, 06:27:04 AM »
well....this should be fascinating reading....
Guess which group the OP will be in, by the grace of god.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Baruch

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2018, 07:11:48 AM »
Welcome also.

At least you are an interesting person, aside from the nihilism that is.

Simply put, know it alls are gnostics ... so most of us are gnostic.  Only a very few are skeptical enough to be agnostic.

And ... ohayo gozaimasu back at you.  Lots of anime fans here.
שלום

Offline SGOS

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2018, 08:18:48 AM »
Confession is good for the soul.  You've come to the right place.  Just put it all out there, and we will mark it with our stamp of disapproval. 

But seriously, I don't care that much about your special quirks.  My first advice would be just to chill.  Being here is not a big deal.  You don't get money for it or ribbons.  And there is no physical retaliation to worry about in cyberspace.  Just relax and enjoy the experience the way you would enjoy a warm bed or a good meal.  If it doesn't fit, it won't be the end of the world, and you can move on.

Offline Sal1981

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2018, 08:30:52 AM »
Yeah, whatever & welcome. *shrug*
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2018, 10:30:27 AM »
BTW, what is a 'gnostic atheist'??
"I know for a fact there is no god!" ...basically.

The idea that they'd be mass-slaughtered for their shells never even occurred to me.
Is there an economically valuable species that isn't mass-grown and mass-harvested? If humans are good at one thing it's manipulating their environment for personal gain, you know?

Quote
There are some pretty obvious differences, lol.  No one's denying that.
I lost my old best friend in large part because she went off into the "brain differences are a social construct" territory with regards to things like spatial reasoning (product of confidence variation, mostly modified by... testosterone) or empathy (product of emotional processing variation, modified by... estrogen and testosterone). Many people will make the same denials she did.

Quote
Could you be more specific?  *hands rope*
Oh, certainly. Our lesson can begin with population prevalence variations by ethnicity in oxytocin receptor alleles, since they're well-known and researched. They would appear to suggest the perceived less-warm, less-open demeanour of East Asian cultures is actually genetic in origin. (Not that I can speak, since I have a number of the more-common-in-East-Asia alleles myself, despite being mostly English.)

Quote
Sure, one can't prove that faeries don't exist, but why should one consider that they do exist?
How can you call yourself rational if you refuse to consider all possibilities?

I would never suggest you should treat the most remote possibilities equally, but placing your faith in modern understanding is what produces the so-called "science advances when the old guard dies" effect. Nasty business.

Quote
Sounds like you're bracing for some push-back there.
Because I've seen some general sniping directed at nihilism. Including from another response on this thread, now. :p

Welcome to thee forum!
Thanks bruv.

Guess which group the OP will be in, by the grace of god.
Not sure "god" and "grace" really belong in the same sentence... Have we been reading the same holy books?

And ... ohayo gozaimasu back at you.  Lots of anime fans here.
Yoku sitta ne. Though, I mostly read light/visual novels and occasionally play games, not so heavy on the anime itself necessarily.

Confession is good for the soul.
Probably wasted on me then eh.

Quote
Being here is not a big deal.  You don't get money for it or ribbons.
...

So you're saying I was lied to?

Goddammit.

Yeah, whatever & welcome. *shrug*
Oi, if you were going to be that dismissive you could've just not responded! :c

Offline trdsf

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2018, 12:36:45 PM »
Howdy and welcome!  Sorry I'm late to the party.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2018, 12:42:50 PM »
"I know for a fact there is no god!" ...basically. (This is what a gnostic atheist is)


Okay, I see your point.  And to an extend, agree with it.  Gnostic reasoning or believing is based upon an internal process; a process that if done correctly will reveal to that person the 'truth' about existence--ours and/or god.  As an atheist I suppose I could now be called a 'gnostic atheist.  Why?  Because of the process I used to become an atheist.   I now 'know' there is no god/gods of any kind; all are the invention of humankind.  I fully understand that one cannot completely prove there is no god or that it is impossible for a god to exist.  Yet, there is no empirical data or facts to show that god(s) exist, have ever existed or need to exist. Not one.   The absence of data, for me, is proof of the 'fact' that god(s) do not exist.  That is all the proof I need.  So, I 'know' in a gnostic way and in a critical thinking, skeptical way as well.    God does not exist!  And to those who disagree, prove it!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2018, 12:59:32 PM »
Okay, I see your point.  And to an extend, agree with it.  Gnostic reasoning or believing is based upon an internal process; a process that if done correctly will reveal to that person the 'truth' about existence--ours and/or god.  As an atheist I suppose I could now be called a 'gnostic atheist.  Why?  Because of the process I used to become an atheist.   I now 'know' there is no god/gods of any kind; all are the invention of humankind.  I fully understand that one cannot completely prove there is no god or that it is impossible for a god to exist.  Yet, there is no empirical data or facts to show that god(s) exist, have ever existed or need to exist. Not one.   The absence of data, for me, is proof of the 'fact' that god(s) do not exist.  That is all the proof I need.  So, I 'know' in a gnostic way and in a critical thinking, skeptical way as well.    God does not exist!  And to those who disagree, prove it!
How much of all that evidence have you even personally verified?

And you claim you know?

You can believe there are no gods, you can be convinced there are no gods, but to claim you know there are no gods is a matter of nothing more than faith.

Faith that all the evidence you know of is valid, has been properly interpreted, and is bereft of omissions. Faith that the evidence which has not yet been discovered will not overturn your "knowledge."

It cannot be held up as rational. To be a proper sceptic is to accept only that which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt--a bar yet higher than any court in any land.

To operate as if there is no god is right and true, and to operate as if there is a god is sorely irrational. But to claim you know?

If you have such perfect knowledge, then go ahead and prove it.

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2018, 01:00:22 PM »
Howdy and welcome!  Sorry I'm late to the party.
Hello~ Don't worry, I hear being late is fashionable or something anyway.

Offline trdsf

Re: Oh dear.
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2018, 01:23:35 PM »
How much of all that evidence have you even personally verified?

And you claim you know?

You can believe there are no gods, you can be convinced there are no gods, but to claim you know there are no gods is a matter of nothing more than faith.

Faith that all the evidence you know of is valid, has been properly interpreted, and is bereft of omissions. Faith that the evidence which has not yet been discovered will not overturn your "knowledge."

It cannot be held up as rational. To be a proper sceptic is to accept only that which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt--a bar yet higher than any court in any land.

To operate as if there is no god is right and true, and to operate as if there is a god is sorely irrational. But to claim you know?

If you have such perfect knowledge, then go ahead and prove it.
All statements of knowledge based on evidence are necessarily provisional, with varying degrees of confidence.

And so I would claim to know based on the current evidence that there is no god.  There is, of course, always the possibility that new evidence might come up, and it will be evaluated at that time.  But for now, there is not enough evidence to accept the god hypothesis even provisionally, and the current state of knowledge contraindicates the existence of a divine authority.

And it's not even my responsibility to look for new evidence.  Researchers at CERN aren't required to re-examine luminiferous æther theory just to make sure it's still not an accurate descriptor of physics before applying relativity, nor are chemists expected to re-disprove the Thompson model of the atom before trying to calculate how a reaction will proceed and a novel molecule form.

In short, the god hypothesis belongs in the same file that caloric and phlogiston and æther have been relegated to.  Where it makes predictions about the physical universe, we have better ones that withstand physical scrutiny, and where it makes metaphysical claims, those are designed to be impervious to examination and so are not worth considering.

So sure, I'll say it: there is no god, insofar as there is no reason to accept that hypothesis in the first place.  Until someone can prove otherwise, I am entitled to so say, based on the historical failure of the god hypothesis to either explain the universe we see around us nor provide rigorously testable predictions, and based on the existence of better theories and hypotheses that have either withstood rigorous examination and/or provide predictions that can eventually be rigorously examined.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk